Hydrofibre Pty Ltd v Australian Prime Fibre Pty Ltd (No 4)
[2013] QSC 247
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Hydrofibre Pty Ltd v Australian Prime Fibre Pty Ltd (No 4)[2013] QSC 247
- Add to List
Hydrofibre Pty Ltd v Australian Prime Fibre Pty Ltd (No 4)[2013] QSC 247
Hydrofibre Pty Ltd v Australian Prime Fibre Pty Ltd (No 4)[2013] QSC 247
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Trial Division | |
PROCEEDING: | Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED ON: | 16 September 2013 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | Written submissions |
JUDGE: | Philip McMurdo J |
ORDER: | The defendants pay to Dowd & Company their costs of the application against them, which was refused on 15 August 2013. |
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – COSTS – where defendants made application to join the plaintiff’s former solicitors to an application – where defendant’s application refused – where plaintiff’s former solicitors represented themselves for the application – whether the plaintiff’s former solicitors are entitled to their costs of the application Adamson v Williams [2001] QCA 38, applied Guss v Veenhuizen [No 2] (1976) 136 CLR 47; [1976] HCA 57, applied Worchild v Petersen [2008] QCA 26, applied |
COUNSEL: | No appearance for the plaintiff No appearance for the defendants, the defendants submissions were heard on the papers No appearance for Dowd & Company, Dowd & Company’s submissions were heard on the papers |
SOLICITORS: | No appearance for the plaintiff Griffiths Parry for the defendants Dowd & Company appeared on its own behalf |
[1] On 15 August 2013, I refused an application by the defendants to join the directors of the plaintiff company and its former solicitors, Dowd and Company. The defendants had sought to join them and the directors of the plaintiff to an application which was directed to protecting the property out of which the defendants might seek to recover their costs of the proceedings. I refused the joinder of each of these parties, holding that there was no demonstrated basis for any of the orders which were to be sought against them.
[2] I made an order for costs in favour of the directors. I indicated that I proposed to order the defendants to pay the costs of Dowd and Company. But it was submitted for the defendants that they should not recover costs, being effectively a self-represented litigant. No relevant authority was cited by either side of the argument. I adjourned the matter so that the parties could provide me with the relevant authorities.
[3] Ordinarily, a litigant without legal representation is entitled only to his out of pocket expenses and is not entitled to be compensated for the time which he has spent in the litigation. But where that litigant is a legal practitioner, the value of that lost time is able to be quantified by the court or the costs assessor. For that reason, the position of a self-represented litigant who is a legal practitioner is different from the ordinary case.[1]
[4] The defendants submit that Dowd and Company should not be compensated by an order for costs of this kind, because they were the authors of the letter of 20 August 2012, which it is said, incorrectly stated that Mr Joshua Magnus was the owner of the house in which he lives. But it is far from demonstrated that if that was a false statement, in that Mr Magnus was not even the beneficial owner of the house, Mr Dowd and his firm knew the true facts and were parties to a misrepresentation by the letter.
[5] There is nothing in the further written submissions for the defendants which warrants a departure from the ordinary rule that costs should follow the event. It will be ordered that the defendants pay to Dowd & Company their costs of the application against them, which was refused on 15 August 2013.
Footnotes
[1] Guss v Veenhuizen [No 2] (1976) 136 CLR 47 at 51; Adamson v Williams [2001] QCA 38 at [26]; Worchild v Petersen [2008] QCA 26 at [4].