Your JavaScript is currently disabled. For the best experience viewing this website please enable JavaScript as described here.

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments

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.

Word Highlighter:
0of0
Change Font and Font Size
Font:
Font Size:
CITE

Unreported Judgment

Groupline Constructions Pty Ltd v CDI Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 2)[2024] QSC 241Muir J
Add to List

Groupline Constructions Pty Ltd v CDI Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 2)[2024] QSC 241

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Groupline Constructions Pty Ltd v CDI Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] QSC 241
PARTIES:	GROUPLINE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 168 247 621) (plaintiff) v CDI LAWYERS PTY LTD (ACN 602 380 898) (first defendant) AND STEPHEN PYMAN (second defendant) AND CHEVRON PARK PTY LTD (ACN 650 297 126) (third defendant)
FILE NO:	BS 4674 of 2024
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	1 November 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
JUDGE:	Muir J
ORDER:	CDI and Mr Pyman pay Groupline’s costs of the proceeding until 9am on 26 August 2024, on the standard basis; and after 9am on 26 August 2024, on the indemnity basis.
CATCHWORDS:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – whether costs should follow the event – whether a proportion of costs should be awarded to the plaintiff on an indemnity basis from the date of the Calderbank Offer – whether the rejection of the offer by the defendants was so unreasonable or imprudent so as to warrant an award of indemnity costs Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR), r 5, r 681 Aljade & MKIC v OCBC [2004] VSC 351 AVS Australian Venue Security Services Pty Ltd v Criminale (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 34 Bankier v HAP2 Pty Ltd (No 3) [2019] QSC 186 Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 304 Brymount Pty Ltd t/as Watson Toyota v Cummins & Anor (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 69 Built Qld Pty Ltd v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (ST) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2022] QSC 62 Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333 Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] 46 FCR 225 Courtney v Chalfen [2021] QCA 25 Fielding as Liquidator of Lyngray Developments Pty Ltd v Dushas [2013] QCA 085 Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397 Gitsham v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2002] QCA 416 Groupline Constructions Pty Ltd v CDI Lawyers Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 209 Hadgelias Holdings and Waight v Seirlis [2014] QCA 325 Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian Workcover Authority (No 2) (2005) 13 VR 435 J & D Rigging Pty Ltd v Agripower Australia Ltd & Ors [2014] QCA 23 James & Ors v Surf Road Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 296 Jones v Bradley (No 2) [2003] NSWCA 258 Kosho Pty Ltd & Anor v Trilogy Funds Management Ltd, Trilogy Funds Management Ltd & Ors v Fujino (No 2) [2013] QSC 170 Leichardt Municipal Council v Green [2004] NSWCA 341 Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11 Porter v Lachlan Shire Council (No 2) [2006] NSWCA 252 SHA Premier Constructions Pty Ltd v Niclin Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] QSC 323 SMEC Testing Services Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2000] NSWCA 323 Speets Investment Pty Ltd v Bencol Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] QCA 39 State of Queensland v Hayes (No 2) [2013] QSC 80 Sultana Investments Pty Ltd v Cellcom Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] QCA 398 Wagner & Ors v Nine Network Australia & Ors (No 2) [2019] QSC 309 Waterman v Gerling Australia Insurance Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 1111 White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (A Firm) (1998) 156 ALR 169
COUNSEL:	G Handran KC with B Wacker for the plaintiff T Matthews MBE KC with S B Whitten for the first, second and third defendants
SOLICITORS:	AJ & Co Lawyers for the plaintiff CDI Lawyers for the first, second and third defendants

[1]
On 9 September 2024, I published written Reasons in the substantive proceeding and I gave the parties the opportunity to agree on the appropriate cost order (which they did not do) or to deliver short written submissions on this issue (which they did do).^[1]
[2]
The plaintiff Groupline’s primary submission is that the appropriate order for costs is that the first defendant CDI and the second defendant Mr Pyman pay its costs of the proceeding on the indemnity basis. Alternatively, (based on the imprudent refusal of a Calderbank offer), that CDI and Mr Pyman pay Groupline’s costs:
1. until 9am on 26 August 2024, on the standard basis; and
2. after 9am on 26 August 2024, on the indemnity basis.

[3]
On the other hand, CDI and Mr Pyman submitted that the appropriate order as to costs is that:
1. they pay two-thirds of Groupline’s costs of the proceeding on the standard basis, or, alternatively:

Relevant legal principles

[4]
The starting point is that the costs of litigation are in the discretion of the court but follow the event, unless the court orders otherwise or the rules provide differently.^[2] The touchstone of the general rule, and any departure from it, is fairness – having regard to what the court considers to be the responsibility of each party for incurring the costs.^[3]
[5]
The mere fact that the successful party has been unsuccessful on some issue is not ordinarily sufficient to depart from the general rule^[4], but the court may decide to do so if the unsuccessful party succeeds on significant issues.^[5]
[6]
Ordinarily special circumstances are required to justify an order for indemnity costs. In general, such a departure is only warranted in an exceptional case.^[6] Special circumstances may be demonstrated where a proceeding has been commenced or continued in circumstances where a party, properly advised, should have known they had no chance of success.^[7]
[7]
The court may also exercise its discretion to make an order different from the general rule in circumstances such as the making of an offer pursuant to the principles in Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333.^[8] In such a case, the party seeking costs on the indemnity basis must show that the other party acted unreasonably or imprudently by not accepting the Calderbank offer.^[9]

The Substantive Proceeding

[8]
Before turning to the respective arguments, it is necessary to say something about the substantive proceeding.

[9]
Groupline sought permanent injunctions restraining CDI and Mr Pyman from acting for Chevron (against it) in the following matters:
1. The first adjudication application filed by Groupline in the Queensland Building and Construction Commission on 6 March 2024 [1(a) and 2(a)];
2. Supreme Court Proceedings BS 3920/24 filed by Groupline on 28 March 2024 [1(b) and 2(b)]; and
3. Any other future disputes or claims arising from, under or in relation to the Construction Contract [1(c) and 2(c)].

[10]
In the week leading up to the first day of trial (26 August 2024), three relevant steps occurred:
1. On 22 August 2024, Groupline served an extensive confidential affidavit exceeding 2,500 pages on CDI and Mr Pyman;
2. On 24 August 2024, CDI and Mr Pyman made admissions to two paragraphs of the statement of claim central to the plaintiff’s case [paragraphs 18 and 19], conceding that during the lawyer-client relationship with Groupline and the Widdicombe interests, Mr Pyman and later CDI came to know facts, matters and circumstances in the nature of “Confidential Information”.
3. CDI and Mr Pyman and a partner and senior associate of CDI offered further various written undertakings (to those previously offered on 2 August 2024) to the effect that CDI and Mr Pyman would not act for the third defendant Chevron in the existing Supreme Court proceedings [5(b) above], but proposed to continue to act for Chevron in the impending final adjudication under the Construction Contact but with an Information Barrier in place between Mr Pyman and the solicitors with the conduct of the adjudication file at CDI [5(c) above].
[11]
Groupline did not press for injunctions in terms of paragraphs 1(a) and 2(a) of the originating application [as set out in 5 (a) above] at trial. This was understandable because that adjudication was finalised and the review in the Supreme Court had been heard. In these circumstances, the relief was unnecessary, and I consider Groupline’s approach in not pressing for this relief was in keeping with the philosophy of UCPR r 5.
[12]
The four main issues at trial centred around whether the Confidential Information was relevant to the adjudication process (an issue vehemently denied by CDI and Mr Pyman); the reliability and sufficiency of the various undertakings (particularly the effectiveness of any information barrier); and whether Groupline’s delay in seeking the injunctions justified the relief being refused.
[13]
Whilst I found the Undertakings were reliable, I was not satisfied they were sufficient. Groupline therefore succeeded on the significant issues for the court’s determination and the permanent injunctions sought in the balance of the originating application were granted. It follows that I reject the submission on behalf of CDI and Mr Pyman that Groupline was only “two-thirds” successful at trial.
[14]
Regardless of this finding, given the way the issues were ventilated at trial, I do not consider the relief not pressed was significant or that this is a case that justifies or warrants an apportionment of costs.^[10]

Does the justice of the case warrant an order for indemnity costs of the proceeding?

[15]
Groupline submitted that the justice of the case demands an award of indemnity costs because CDI and Mr Pyman commenced and continued their defence without a proper basis and in wilful disregard of the facts and settled law.^[11] This submission was infused with the notion that CDI and Mr Pyman acted unreasonably in their overall conduct of the proceeding.

Unreasonable conduct

[16]
As to the latter, Groupline referred to the late admission to the Confidential Information and Mr Pyman’s delay in reviewing CDI’s files to refresh his memory. CDI and Mr Pyman justified their timing with reference to the late filing of the confidential affidavit, and that it was only on receipt of this material that they realised that the admissions should be properly made. In the circumstances as I have found them to be in my Reasons, it is surprising that Mr Pyman did not make reasonable inquiries earlier so that he could plead positively to the allegations about the Confidential Information. But Mr Pyman’s evidence was that it was a combination of this review and the review of the confidential affidavit that led to the admission being made.
[17]
Groupline also referred to the observations in my Earlier Reasons regarding Mr Pyman’s evidence and his “overall approach to the issues”.^[12] There is, however, a distinction between Mr Pyman’s conduct as a witness, and his conduct as a solicitor. I did not find he was an unreliable witness. Instead, I observed that his overall approach to the issues was reflective of a person who had lost objectivity, and displayed a lack of insight and judgment about this matter (in its totality).^[13]
[18]
Whether conduct is unreasonable or not is a matter of judgment and impression about which reasonable minds might differ.^[14] In White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (a firm),^[15] the court made the following observation about the difference between a party who runs their case “inadequately”, and one who runs it “unreasonably”:

“The authorities do not support the proposition that simply instituting or maintaining a proceeding on behalf of a client which has no or substantially no prospect of success will invoke the jurisdiction. There must be something more namely, carrying on that conduct unreasonably.”

[emphasis added]

[19]
In the context of the present argument, it cannot be overlooked that the eventual admission to the Confidential Information narrowed the issues for determination at trial. That is not the conduct of an unreasonable litigant.

Was defence groundless or without a proper basis?

[20]
Groupline submitted that once the Confidential Information admission was made, the “delay” and “adjudication” factors were the only planks left. This submission overlooks the issue of the reliability and sufficiency of the Information Barriers proposed which also remained a live issue.
[21]
The delay case and the argument that the risk of misuse of Confidential Information did not arise in the case of an adjudication were both weak arguments and failed. But the fact that an argument fails does not immediately render it groundless. There was a legal basis for both arguments, but due to the factual findings made they were ultimately unsuccessful. It follows that I am not satisfied that either defence can be said to have had no reasonable basis or merit such that it ought to be categorised as so “hopeless” or “unreasonable” to justify an award of indemnity costs.^[16]
[22]
The awarding of costs on the indemnity basis ultimately depends upon the exercise of a broad discretion in the circumstances of the case. In the broad exercise of my discretion as to costs, I am not satisfied that there are any special or exceptional circumstances in this case justifying a departure from the ordinary principle that the costs of the proceeding are to be paid on the standard basis.^[17]
[23]
That is not the end of the consideration of whether indemnity costs ought to be awarded in this case.

Should costs be awarded on the indemnity basis after a Calderbank offer?

[24]
On 24 August 2024, the solicitors for Groupline sent a Calderbank offer to CDI and Mr Pyman with an offer to settle as follows:^[18]

“6.In the interests of avoiding any further wasted time and costs, we are instructed to make this final offer, as follows:

The Defendants consent to an injunction in terms of subparagraph (c), in each of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the originating application.
The Defendants pay our client’s costs of:

your client’s amended interlocutory application for disclosure filed 26 July 2023 on a standard basis and fixed at $14,000; and
the present proceeding, on a standard basis, to today:
1. as assessed or agreed; or alternatively
2. fixed in the amount of $380,000 (exclude of GST).”

[25]
In Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] 46 FCR 225, Sheppard J listed the circumstances which may warrant the exercise of the discretion to award indemnity costs, and relevantly included “an imprudent” refusal of an offer to compromise, such as a Calderbank offer. In such a case, courts are inclined to award indemnity costs as an incentive for parties to accept reasonable offers to settle.^[19]
[26]
To determine whether an offer was unreasonably or imprudently refused, the following non-exhaustive circumstances are of assistance:^[20]
1. the stage of the proceeding at which the offer was received;
2. the time allowed to the offeree to consider the offer;
3. the extent of the compromise offered;
4. the offeree’s prospects of success assessed at the date of the offer;
5. the clarity which the terms of the offer were expressed; and
6. whether the offer foreshadowed an application for an indemnity cost in the event of the offeree’s rejecting it.
[27]
In the present case, the Calderbank offer was made two days prior to the start of the trial,^[21] and was only open until 9am on the first day of the hearing – allowing only one hour during normal business hours for its consideration [see [26](a) and (b) above]. At first blush, that might be seen to be an unreasonably short timeframe. But Groupline made the offer on the same day and almost immediately after the concession about the Confidential Information was made [on 24 July]. It is common knowledge that the lead up to the commencement of a trial ordinarily sees the legal representatives working long and hard. As to be expected – and as emerged at trial – this case was no exception, and it is obvious both sides spent the weekend furiously preparing. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the offer allowed adequate time for proper consideration.
[28]
I am also satisfied that the offer was in clear terms and foreshadowed an application for indemnity costs if refused [see [26](e) and (f) above].
[29]
The most contentious considerations in this case are the extent of the compromise offered [see [26](c) above], as well as CDI and Mr Pyman’s prospects of success [see [26](d) above].

Extent of the compromise

[30]
By the Calderbank offer, Groupline sought an order for payment of the costs of the proceeding up until 24 August 2024 on the standard basis as assessed or agreed, or alternatively, fixed at $380,000 on the basis that orders in terms of paragraphs 1(c) and 2(c) of the statement of claim were made. It was submitted by CDI and Mr Pyman that this offer effectively required complete capitulation by them. But I do not accept that submission, as it conveniently overlooks that restraints in terms of paragraphs 1(b) and 2(b) of the statement of claim were also granted. I am therefore satisfied that the offer to settle was on terms less favourable to the offeror than the final orders made after the trial.
[31]
It is uncontroversial that on 30 July 2024, an interlocutory application for disclosure by Groupline was dismissed by Bowskill CJ, and CDI and Mr Pyman were ordered to pay Groupline’s costs on the standard basis. The Calderbank offer also included an agreement to pay these costs, fixed at $14,000. The written submission on behalf of CDI and Mr Pyman did not submit that this sum was an unreasonable amount for those costs, although I note the Calderbank offer referred to in paragraph [37] below does. But on balance, and as a matter of common knowledge and sense, and particularly given the involvement of experienced barristers on both sides, it is reasonable to assume that this amount covers the costs reasonably and necessarily incurred on the standard basis for a contested application in the Supreme Court. The inclusions of the requirement to pay this sum in circumstances where there was an existing order for costs against CDI and Mr Pyman does not change my view that the Calderbank offer presented a genuine compromise on terms more favourable than the overall outcome of the proceeding.

Prospects of success

[32]
The reasonableness or otherwise of the refusal to accept such an offer must be considered by reference to the situation at the time the offer was made.^[22] This requires consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case at such a time.^[23] In making this assessment, the court must be careful not to use the benefit of hindsight.
[33]
In the present case, the late admissions not only confined the issues but also substantially changed the complexity of the issues and weakened CDI’s and Mr Pyman’s prospects of success. As I have set out in paragraph [21] above, the remaining arguments – though not hopeless – were weak. At the point of time the Calderbank offer made, the issues had crystallised and CDI and Mr Pyman ought to have realised their prospects of success were limited.

[34]
In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the Calderbank offer was imprudently refused by CDI and Mr Pyman. I find that the appropriate order as to costs is that CDI and Mr Pyman pay Groupline’s costs of the proceeding on the standard basis until 9am on 26 August 2024; and after 9am on 26 August 2024, on the indemnity basis.
[35]
The issue of costs does not end here.

Costs of the costs application

[36]
CDI and Mr Pyman seek their costs of the costs application.
[37]
On 25 September 2024, CDI sent a Calderbank offer^[24] to Groupline, with an offer to compromise as to the costs of the proceeding as follows:

“4. In the interests of saving time and costs for both parties, we are instructed to propose a resolution of the cost’s positions by consent orders that the defendants pay your client’s costs of the proceedings:

until 9 am on Monday, 26 August 2024, on a standard basis; and
from 9 am on Monday, 26 August 2024, on an indemnity basis.

5. This offer is open for acceptance until 5:00pm on 26 September 2024.”

[38]
Taking into consideration the relevant principles [see [26] above], I am satisfied that this offer was expressed with clarity, and although it did not expressly state so, its rejection would be relied upon to underpin a claim for costs of the costs application.
[39]
The fact that the Calderbank offer as to costs is the same as the costs order ultimately made might suggest, on its face, that rejection of the offer was unreasonable. But again, the court must be careful not to use the benefit of hindsight in judging Groupline’s response. Overall, I am not satisfied that the Calderbank offer as to costs was imprudently or unreasonably rejected by Groupline for the following three reasons:
1. First: the offer was made late. Groupline served its submission as to costs on CDI and Mr Pyman on 12 September 2024 (the directions required submissions from both sides by 30 September 2024), and at that point CDI and Mr Pyman had not yet filed their submissions as to costs [they did not do so until 30 September 2024];
2. Second: at the time of the offer, Groupline’s prospects of obtaining an award of indemnity costs for the entire proceeding was not without prospects and certainly not weak. Indeed, while I have not ultimately acceded to Groupline’s primary submission, it was underpinned by a sound factual basis, justified by its considerable merit and required careful consideration; and
3. Third: Groupline was successful in obtaining the alternative order for costs it sought, so the Calderbank offer as to costs was ‘on the money’ so to speak. But the extent of the compromise was hardly an enticing one at that point in time, given the reasonable prospects of the primary contention, and that Groupline had already incurred the costs of preparing its written submissions as to costs.

[40]
I therefore reject CDI and Mr Pyman’s claim for Groupline to pay their costs of the costs argument.

Orders

[41]
It is ordered that CDI and Mr Pyman pay Groupline’s costs of the proceeding until 9am on 26 August 2024, on the standard basis; and after 9am on 26 August 2024, on the indemnity basis.

Footnotes

[1] Groupline Constructions Pty Ltd v CDI Lawyers Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 209 (“Earlier Reasons”).

[2] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) r 681. See also Waterman v Gerling Australia Insurance Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 1111 at [10] per Brereton J; and Kosho Pty Ltd & Anor v Trilogy Funds Management Ltd, Trilogy Funds Management Ltd & Ors v Fujino (No 2) [2013] QSC 170 at [5]-[8] per Applegarth J.

[3] Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11 at [67] per McHugh J.

[4] Courtney v Chalfen [2021] QCA 25 at [5] per Morrison JA, with whom Philippides and Mullins JJA agreed. See also Speets Investment Pty Ltd v Bencol Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] QCA 39 at [16].

[5] James & Ors v Surf Road Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 296 at [31]-[36]; Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 304 at [38] per Beazley, Ipp and Basten JJA.

[6] Bankier v HAP2 Pty Ltd (No 3) [2019] QSC 186.

[7] Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397 at 401 per Woodward J.

[8] State of Queensland v Hayes (No 2) [2013] QSC 80 at [8].

[9] Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] 46 FCR 225. See also J & D Rigging Pty Ltd v Agripower Australia Ltd & Ors [2014] QCA 23 at [5]-[6] per Holmes JA, Applegarth and Boddice JJ.

[10] Speets Investment Pty Ltd v Bencol Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] QCA 39 at [17].

[11] Plaintiff’s submissions on costs dated 12 September 2024, citing Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] 46 FCR 225 at 222-233.

[12] Earlier Reasons at [67].

[13] Earlier Reasons at [67].

[14] Aljade & MKIC v OCBC [2004] VSC 351 per Redlich J as discussed by the Victorian Court of Appeal in Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian Workcover Authority (No 2) (2005) 13 VR 435.

[15] (1998) 156 ALR 169.

[16] Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397.

[17] Gitsham v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2002] QCA 416 at [11], citing Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] 46 FCR 225 and Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1985) 81 ALR 391.

[18] Emphasis was not added.

[19] Sultana Investments Pty Ltd v Cellcom Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] QCA 398 at [15]; see also Fielding as Liquidator of Lyngray Developments Pty Ltd v Dushas [2013] QCA 085 at [9]-[12].

[20] Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian Workcover Authority (No 2) (2005) 13 VR 435 at [25] as also relevantly discussed by Bond J more recently in SHA Premier Constructions Pty Ltd v Niclin Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] QSC 323 at [8]-[14] citing Hadgelias Holdings and Waight v Seirlis [2014] QCA 325 at [11].

[21] The offer was made late on a Friday afternoon with the trial listed for the following Monday.

[22] Built Qld Pty Ltd v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (ST) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2022] QSC 62 at [51] per Williams J, citing Giles JA in SMEC Testing Services Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2000] NSWCA 323 at [37]; AVS Australian Venue Security Services Pty Ltd v Criminale (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 34 at [7]; Porter v Lachlan Shire Council (No 2) [2006] NSWCA 252 at [6]; Jones v Bradley (No 2) [2003] NSWCA 258 at [8], Leichardt Municipal Council v Green [2004] NSWCA 341 at [19]; Brymount Pty Ltd t/as Watson Toyota v Cummins & Anor (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 69 at [14].

[23] Built Qld Pty Ltd v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (ST) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2022] QSC 62 at [52].

[24] Affidavit of Kristen Ellen Kipps affirmed on 30 September 2024, Exhibit 1.

Editorial Notes

Published Case Name:
Groupline Constructions Pty Ltd v CDI Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 2)
Shortened Case Name:
Groupline Constructions Pty Ltd v CDI Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 2)
MNC:
[2024] QSC 241
Court:
QSC
Judge(s):
Muir J
Date:
01 Nov 2024

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited List of Cases Cited by this judgment

Case Name	Full Citation	Frequency
AVS Australian Venue Security Services Pty Ltd v Criminale (No 2)	View on:JADE[2007] NSWCA 34	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2007] NSWCA 34 Cite 2 - [2007] NSWCA 34
Bankier v HAP2 Pty Ltd (No 3)	[2019] QSC 186	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2019] QSC 186 Cite 2 - [2019] QSC 186
Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard (No 2)	View on:JADE[2009] NSWCA 304	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2009] NSWCA 304 Cite 2 - [2009] NSWCA 304
Brymount Pty Ltd v Cummins (No 2)	View on:JADE[2005] NSWCA 69	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2005] NSWCA 69 Cite 2 - [2005] NSWCA 69
Built Qld Pty Ltd v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (St) Pty Ltd [No 3]	[2022] QSC 62	3 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2022] QSC 62 Cite 2 - [2022] QSC 62 Cite 3 - [2022] QSC 62
Calderbank v Calderbank	(1975) 3 All E.R. 333	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - (1975) 3 All E.R. 333 Cite 2 - (1975) 3 All E.R. 333
Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd	(1993) 46 F.C.R 225	5 citations Jump To Cite 1 - (1993) 46 F.C.R 225 Cite 2 - (1993) 46 F.C.R 225 Cite 3 - (1993) 46 F.C.R 225 Cite 4 - (1993) 46 F.C.R 225 Cite 5 - (1993) 46 F.C.R 225
Courtney v Chalfen	[2021] QCA 25	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2021] QCA 25 Cite 2 - [2021] QCA 25
Fielding v Dushas	[2013] QCA 85	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2013] QCA 85 Cite 2 - [2013] QCA 85
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd	(1988) 81 ALR 397	3 citations Jump To Cite 1 - (1988) 81 ALR 397 Cite 2 - (1988) 81 ALR 397 Cite 3 - (1988) 81 ALR 397
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd	(1985) 81 ALR 391	1 citation Jump To Cite 1 - (1985) 81 ALR 391
Gitsham v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd	[2002] QCA 416	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2002] QCA 416 Cite 2 - [2002] QCA 416
Groupline Constructions Pty Ltd v CDI Lawyers Pty Ltd	[2024] QSC 209	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2024] QSC 209 Cite 2 - [2024] QSC 209
Hadgelias Holdings Pty Ltd v Seirlis	[2014] QCA 325	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2014] QCA 325 Cite 2 - [2014] QCA 325
Hazeldene's Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian Work Cover Authority	View on:VR(2005) 13 VR 435	3 citations Jump To Cite 1 - (2005) 13 VR 435 Cite 2 - (2005) 13 VR 435 Cite 3 - (2005) 13 VR 435
J & D Rigging Pty Ltd v Agripower Australia Limited	[2014] QCA 23	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2014] QCA 23 Cite 2 - [2014] QCA 23
James v Surf Road Nominees (No 2)	View on:JADE[2005] NSWCA 296	1 citation Jump To Cite 1 - [2005] NSWCA 296
Jones v Bradley (No 2)	View on:JADE[2003] NSW CA 258	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2003] NSW CA 258 Cite 2 - [2003] NSW CA 258
Kosho Pty Ltd v Trilogy Funds Management Ltd (No 2)	[2013] QSC 170	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2013] QSC 170 Cite 2 - [2013] QSC 170
Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green	View on:JADE(2004) NSWCA 341	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - (2004) NSWCA 341 Cite 2 - (2004) NSWCA 341
Oshlack v Richmond River Council	View on:JADE(1998) HCA 11	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - (1998) HCA 11 Cite 2 - (1998) HCA 11
Porter v Lachlan Shire Council (No 2)	View on:JADE[2006] NSWCA 252	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2006] NSWCA 252 Cite 2 - [2006] NSWCA 252
Richfield Investments Pty Ltd v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd (OCBC)	View on:JADE[2004] VSC 351	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2004] VSC 351 Cite 2 - [2004] VSC 351
S.H.A. Premier Constructions Pty Ltd v Niclin Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2)	[2020] QSC 323	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2020] QSC 323 Cite 2 - [2020] QSC 323
Smec Testing Services v Campbell Town City Council	View on:JADE[2000] NSWCA 323	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2000] NSWCA 323 Cite 2 - [2000] NSWCA 323
Speets Investment Pty Ltd v Bencol Pty Ltd (No 2)	[2021] QCA 39	3 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2021] QCA 39 Cite 2 - [2021] QCA 39 Cite 3 - [2021] QCA 39
State of Queensland v Hayes (No 2)	[2013] QSC 80	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2013] QSC 80 Cite 2 - [2013] QSC 80
Sultana Investments Pty Ltd v Cellcom Pty Ltd (No. 2)	[2009] 2 Qd R 287; [2008] QCA 398	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2008] QCA 398 Cite 2 - [2008] QCA 398
Wagner v Nine Network Australia (No 2)	[2019] QSC 309	1 citation Jump To Cite 1 - [2019] QSC 309
Waterman v Gerling Australia Insurance Co Pty Ltd (No.2)	View on:JADE[2005] NSWSC 1111	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2005] NSWSC 1111 Cite 2 - [2005] NSWSC 1111
White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower and Hart (a firm)	(1998) 156 ALR 169	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - (1998) 156 ALR 169 Cite 2 - (1998) 156 ALR 169

Cases Citing List of cases on Queensland Judgments citing this Judgment

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode

Change Font and Font Size

Groupline Constructions Pty Ltd v CDI Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 2)[2024] QSC 241