Nichols v Legal Services Commissioner (No 2)
[2017] QSC 203
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
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- Nichols v Legal Services Commissioner (No 2)[2017] QSC 203
- Add to List
Nichols v Legal Services Commissioner (No 2)[2017] QSC 203
Nichols v Legal Services Commissioner (No 2)[2017] QSC 203
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Nichols v Legal Services Commissioner (No 2) [2017] QSC 203 |
PARTIES: | GEORGE NICHOLS (applicant) v LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER (respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | BS No 3668 of 2015 |
DIVISION: | Trial Division |
PROCEEDING: | Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court at Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | 15 September 2017 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 3 February 2017 |
JUDGE: | Douglas J |
ORDER: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – PARTICULAR CASES – UNREASONABLE CONDUCT OR DELINQUENCY RELATED TO PROCEEDINGS – where the applicant was successful in an application for a statutory order of review of a decision of the respondent – where the respondent declined an offer by the applicant to settle the proceedings two days prior to the hearing – where the applicant did not supply the respondent with a copy of material relied upon by the respondent prior to the respondent making the impugned decision – where the applicant alleges the conduct of the respondent was unreasonable – whether the applicant is entitled to costs on the indemnity basis Judicial Review Act 1991, s 20 Di Carlo v Dubois [2002] QCA 225 Legal Services Commissioner v Bone [2014] QCA 179 |
COUNSEL: | M D Martin QC for the applicant M D Nicolson for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | Mills Oakley for the applicant Legal Services Commissioner for the respondent |
- In my judgment delivered 29 August 2017 I ordered that the respondent reconsider the applicant’s complaint according to law. Since then the parties have filed further written submissions about the form of the order and possible orders for costs that should be made. The applicant argues that he is entitled to indemnity costs on the basis that the conduct of the respondent has been unreasonable. My attention was also brought to a letter of 1 February 2017 where the applicant, through his solicitors, offered to settle the proceedings on the basis that the respondent consider the applicant’s complaint according to law with an order for costs on the standard basis, an offer which was rejected.
- The aspects in which the respondent’s conduct was said to be unreasonable focussed on the argument that this was the second occasion that the respondent had failed to consider the applicant’s complaint properly. In undertaking the second investigation, the respondent was said to have erred in respects that were more significant than the first investigation in the sense that he misdirected himself that he needed to make a determination whether the relevant funds were impressed with a trust when that was something for a tribunal which would hear any complaint. The respondent’s conduct was also criticised because of the failure to obtain the reasons of Federal Magistrate Jarrett when making the decision where such a finding that the relevant funds were impressed with a trust had been made.
- The award of indemnity costs on the ground of unreasonableness was discussed in Legal Services Commissioner v Bone.[1] The court there adopted statements in the previous decision of Di Carlo v Dubois[2] to the effect that, to enliven the discretion to award indemnity costs, a court is not confined to the situation of an ethically or morally delinquent party but requires some evidence of unreasonable conduct which need not rise as high as vexatious conduct.[3] The normal focus in determining whether indemnity costs should be ordered is on the conduct in and in respect of the litigation by the party against whom the costs order is to be made.
- The respondent submitted that he had not acted unreasonably in response to the application. The reasons for the decision by Federal Magistrate Jarrett were not referred to by the applicant in his outline of argument dated 21 July 2015 and were only identified in the applicant’s new outline of argument dated 20 December 2016 in a footnote. A copy of the decision was not then provided to the respondent.
- The senior investigator sought a copy of the reasons of Federal Magistrate Jarrett from the applicant. His solicitors did not initially provide such a copy and the respondent submits that their failure to provide the reasons in a timely manner justifies a basis as to why there would be no order as to costs in the circumstances, particularly where the applicant has also not been successful in his argument under s 20 of the Judicial Review Act 1991.
- The senior investigator also deposes to the fact that it was difficult for her to find a copy of the decision although she had searched for it because publication of Family Court judgments is often done under a pseudonym. She read a copy when it was obtained and provided in an email dated 25 January 2017. Objection was taken to the receipt by me of that affidavit by the applicant in written submissions in reply in this matter but it seems to me that that evidence is relevant to this issue.
- The applicant argues, however, that the main error of the respondent was that identified in para [34] of my earlier reasons and, bearing in mind that that was the second review by the respondent of the issues consequent on its agreement to do that after the first court appearance, that its conduct was unreasonable.
- In circumstances where the applicant has not been wholly successful, not having succeeded in his application for a statutory order of review, and where his solicitors could have facilitated a proper investigation at an earlier stage by providing the reasons by Federal Magistrate Jarrett, I am not persuaded that the respondent’s conduct has been so unreasonable as to justify an order for indemnity costs. The respondent’s submission was that no order as to costs should be made but, in the circumstances where the respondent misunderstood the nature of the decision to be made as highlighted by me in para [34] of the previous decision, and, bearing in mind the nature of the offer made two days before the hearing to settle the proceedings on the basis that the respondent consider the applicant’s complaint according to law with an order for costs on the standard basis, my conclusion is that the applicant should receive his costs on the standard basis but not on the indemnity basis.
- If the reasons of Federal Magistrate Jarrett had been provided to the respondent in conjunction with the written submissions that referred to them and the letter of offer had been delivered at an earlier stage, the submissions for the applicant that he receive his costs on an indemnity basis would have been significantly stronger.
- Accordingly, I order that:
- The decision of the respondent dated 9 September 2016 to not investigate Gordon Lyle Harris and Patricia Keyworth pursuant to a complaint lodged by the applicant on 9 August 2013 be set aside.
- The respondent consider the applicant’s complaint against Gordon Lyle Harris and Patricia Keyworth dated 9 August 2013 according to law and taking into account the reasons for judgment in this proceeding delivered on 29 August 2017 and the applicant’s outlines of argument filed on 21 July 2015 and 20 January 2017.
- The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings to be assessed on the standard basis.