Wood v Queensland [No 2]
[2023] QSC 229
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
- Wood v Queensland [No 2][2023] QSC 229
- Add to List
Wood v Queensland [No 2][2023] QSC 229
Wood v Queensland [No 2][2023] QSC 229
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Wood v State of Queensland (No 2) [2023] QSC 229 |
PARTIES: | IAN ANDREW WOOD (plaintiff) v STATE OF QUEENSLAND (defendant) |
FILE NO/S: | SC No 6639 of 2022 |
DIVISION: | Trial Division |
PROCEEDING: | Application as to costs |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court at Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | 13 October 2023 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | Application on the papers. Defendant’s written submissions filed 12 October 2023. |
JUDGE: | Kelly J |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – where the applicant filed an interlocutory application seeking to amend the claim and statement of claim – where the applicant was unsuccessful in his application to join the proposed fourth defendant to the proceedings – whether costs should follow the event PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – COSTS OF AND INCIDENTAL TO PROCEEDING – where the applicant had some success in his application against the defendant – whether costs of and incidental to the application should be costs in the proceeding Wood v State of Queensland [2023] QSC 221, related |
COUNSEL: | I A Wood for the plaintiff (self-represented) P Van Grinsven for the defendant D F Cliff (sol) for the proposed fourth defendant |
SOLICITORS: | Crown Law for the defendant Mills Oakley for the proposed fourth defendant |
- [1]On 5 October 2023, I delivered judgment in respect of the application filed 26 June 2023. My reasons are contained in Wood v State of Queensland [2023] QSC 221. At the time of judgment delivery, I made the following direction:
“The parties are directed to provide written submissions on costs limited to two pages to the registry by 12 October 2023”.
- [2]At the time of judgment delivery, the State of Queensland indicated that the appropriate order was that, as between Mr Wood and the State of Queensland, the costs of and incidental to the application filed 26 June 2023 be costs in the proceeding. On 12 October 2023, the State of Queensland filed written submissions which maintained that position.
- [3]No other party filed written submissions in relation to costs.
- [4]To the extent that the application filed 26 June 2023 sought the joinder of the complainant, Ms Annaliese Dowdle, as a defendant, the application was entirely unsuccessful. In that respect, there is no reason why costs should not follow the event. Otherwise, as between the State of Queensland and Mr Wood, Mr Wood enjoyed some limited success on his application and, in all the circumstances, in the exercise of my discretion as to costs it appears to me that the appropriate order is that the costs of the application filed 26 June 2023 should be costs in the proceeding.
- [5]Accordingly, the orders as to costs are as follows:
- 1.The plaintiff shall pay Ms Annaliese Dowdle’s costs of and incidental to the application filed 26 June 2023 to be assessed on the standard basis.
- 2.The plaintiff’s and defendant’s costs of and incidental to the application filed 26 June 2023 are costs in the proceeding.