McQueen v Parole Board Queensland
[2025] QSC 11
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
- McQueen v Parole Board Queensland[2025] QSC 11
- Add to List
McQueen v Parole Board Queensland[2025] QSC 11
McQueen v Parole Board Queensland[2025] QSC 11
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | McQueen v Parole Board Queensland [2025] QSC 11 |
PARTIES: | ALLAN DAVID MCQUEEN (applicant) v PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND (respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | BS 5631/24 |
DIVISION: | Trial Division |
PROCEEDING: | Application for a Statutory Order of Review |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court at Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | 30 January 2025 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | Heard on the papers. Written submissions of the applicant dated 13 December 2024. Written submissions of the respondent dated 13 December 2024. |
JUDGE: | Cooper J |
ORDER: | The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed. |
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – where the applicant successfully applied for an order of the Queensland Supreme Court to set aside the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s parole and remake that decision according to law – where a hearing of the application was adjourned and the costs of that adjourned hearing were reserved by consent – where the respondent contended that the adjourned hearing was adjourned because of complaints the applicant made about the respondent’s claims of public interest immunity over material filed by the respondent – where the respondent contended that the applicant did not succeed on the concerns regarding the respondent’s claims to public interest immunity – whether the applicant was entitled to their standard costs for the application |
COUNSEL: | AD Scott KC with AR Hughes for the applicant R McDermott for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | Jahnke Lawyers for the applicant Parole Board Queensland for the respondent |
- [1]On 9 December 2024, I ordered that the decision by the respondent to confirm its earlier decision to cancel the respondent’s parole order be set aside and that the respondent remake that decision according to law.[1] At the time judgment was delivered, the parties requested the opportunity to make submissions on costs in writing. Those written submissions have now been provided.
- [2]The applicant submits that, in accordance with the general rule,[2] costs should follow the event such that the respondent should be ordered to pay his costs of the proceeding on the standard basis.
- [3]Save with respect to one matter, the respondent accepts that there is no reason why costs should not follow the event.
- [4]The only issue in dispute concerns costs thrown away by an earlier adjournment of the hearing of the application on 3 October 2024. Those costs were reserved by consent when the adjournment was ordered.
- [5]The respondent submits that each party should bear its own costs of that adjourned hearing in circumstances where:
- the adjournment was ordered because of complaints the applicant made about material filed in support of the respondent’s claims to public interest immunity; and
- the applicant did not succeed on the issues he raised concerning the respondent’s claims to public interest immunity.
- [6]I do not accept that submission.
- [7]The adjournment was ordered with the consent of the respondent.[3] On the filed material, it appears that the need for the hearing of the application to be adjourned arose when the respondent foreshadowed its intention to rely on a wholly confidential affidavit which would not be provided to the applicant. The applicant submitted that this proposal was both unorthodox and unfair.[4] When the application was adjourned, a further order was made by consent which required that the respondent serve a copy of the confidential affidavit, redacting only those parts which the respondent considered necessary to preserve its claims of public interest immunity.[5] The respondent subsequently filed and served two affidavits redacted in accordance with that order.[6]
- [8]There is nothing in that sequence of events which suggests that any conduct on the applicant’s part would warrant excluding the costs of the adjourned hearing from an order that costs should follow the event.
- [9]As to the submission that the applicant did not succeed on the issues he raised regarding the respondent’s claims to public interest immunity, it should be remembered that there were two aspects to the applicant’s argument. The applicant failed on the first aspect; that by considering material subject to a claim of public interest immunity the respondent took into account an irrelevant consideration.[7] However, it was unnecessary to decide the second aspect of his argument; that s 340AA of the Corrective Services Act 2006 has displaced the common law concept of public interest immunity in the context of decisions made under that legislation.[8]
- [10]Even if this second aspect of the argument had been determined against the applicant, I do not accept that such an outcome would warrant excluding the costs of the adjourned hearing from an order that the costs of the proceeding should follow the event. In substance, the respondent’s submissions justifying such an exclusion seek to have the court treat the costs of the adjourned hearing as a separate issue or event in the proceeding. Although there may be cases in which it is appropriate to deprive a successful party of some part of its costs to reflect the varying degrees of success in the litigation, this will usually require special or exceptional circumstances; the mere fact that the successful party has been unsuccessful on some issues will ordinarily not be sufficient to justify this type of order.[9] I note that the respondent does not submit that the applicant’s lack of success on the arguments regarding public interest immunity means he should be deprived of some part of his costs of the hearing of the adjourned application before me on 1 November 2024.
- [11]In the circumstances described above, I am not persuaded that the fact the applicant did not succeed on the arguments he advanced based on the respondent’s claims to public interest immunity warrants excluding the costs of the adjourned hearing from an order that the costs of the proceeding should follow the event.
- [12]I order that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.
Footnotes
[1] McQueen v Parole Board Queensland [2024] QSC 308.
[2] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 681.
[3] Consent order of 3 October 2024 (CFI document 19).
[4] Submissions of the applicant regarding the adjournment dated 2 October 2024 (CFI document 17).
[5] Consent order of 3 October 2024 (CFI document 19).
[6] Affidavit of Ms Sharp filed 18 October 2024 (CFI document 20) and Affidavit of Ms Jackson filed 18 October 2024 (CFI document 21).
[7] McQueen v Parole Board Queensland [2024] QSC 308, [50]-[60].
[8] McQueen v Parole Board Queensland [2024] QSC 308, [66].
[9] Courtney v Chalfen [2021] QCA 25, [5].