From "Secondary Punishment" to "Supermax" : the human costs of high-security regimes in Australia

“Supermax” prisons, conceived by the United States in the early 1980s, are typically reserved for convicted political criminals such as terrorists and spies and for other inmates who are considered to pose a serious ongoing threat to the wider community, to the security of correctional institutions, or to the safety of other inmates. Prisoners are usually restricted to their cells for up to twenty-three hours a day and typically have minimal contact with other inmates and correctional staff. Not only does the Federal Bureau of Prisons operate one of these facilities, but almost every state has either a supermax wing or stand-alone supermax prison. The Globalization of Supermax Prisons examines why nine advanced industrialized countries have adopted the supermax prototype, paying particular attention to the economic, social, and political processes that have affected each state. Featuring essays that look at the U.S.-run prisons of Abu Ghraib and Guantanemo, this collection seeks to determine if the American model is the basis for the establishment of these facilities and considers such issues as the support or opposition to the building of a supermax and why opposition efforts failed; the allegation of human rights abuses within these prisons; and the extent to which the decision to build a supermax was influenced by developments in the United States. Additionally, contributors address such domestic matters as the role of crime rates, media sensationalism, and terrorism in each country’s decision to build a supermax prison.

Assessment of costs : challenge to validity of client agreement between party entitled to costs and its solicitors

In ASIC v Atlantic 3 Financial (Aust) Pty Ltd [2006] QCA 540 the Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the decision of Mullins J at first instance in ASIC v Atlantic 3 Financial (Aust) Pty LTd [2006] QSC 152, the majority concluding that the client agreement in issue was not inconsistent with s48 of the Queensland Law Society Act 1952.

Analysing the Prospects of a Successful Application Under s 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)

Section 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) makes provision for an applicant to seek a statutory right of user over a neighbour’s property where such right of use is reasonably necessary in the interests of effective use in any reasonable manner of the dominant land. In recent years, the Queensland courts have been confronted with a number of such applications. Litigation has also been common in New South Wales which has a statutory provision in largely similar terms. This article seeks to identify those factors that have underpinned successful applications, the obstacles that an applicant may encounter and the considerations that have guided the courts when considering the associated issues of compensation and costs.

A lesson in costs recovery

In La Spina v Macdonnells Law [2014] QSC 44 the Queensland Court of Appeal set aside a judgment entered in circumstances where the appellant had not been given the requisite notice of the application under r31 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)(UCPR). The court found there had been a denial of natural justice. The court also considered whether in any event the entry of judgment in the circumstances was a proper exercise of the powers which may be exercised on an application for directions under r743H of the UCPR.

Practice and Procedure - offers to settle - no costs benefit if no compromise

In Jones v Millward [2005]QCA76 the Queensland Court of Appeal held that an offer to settle under the UCPR will not attract a costs benefit unless it involves some element of compromise

Indemnity costs - whether indemnity costs can be ordered in Magistrates Court

In Asset Loan Management v Mamap Pty Ltd [2005] QDC 295, McGill DCJ held that costs may be recovered in Magistrates Courts on the indemnity basis. His Honour was satisfied his conclusion in this respect was not precluded by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Beardmore v Franklins Management Services Pty Ltd [2002] QCA 60

Practice and Procedures - costs - offer to settle by plaintiff under UCPR r360 for amount of claim plus costs

In JLG Industries Inc v Teetree Pty Ltd [2002] QDC 031 the court considered the implications in terms of costs of an offer to settle by the plaintiff under the UCPR where the element of compromise involved only acceptance of the amount of claim without interest.

Costs - solicitor's retainer on 'no win, no fee' basis - meaning of 'win' - solicitor not entitled to recover excess of costs over amount paid on settlement - no consideration for variation of oral retainer.

In Baker Johnson Lawyers v Jorgensen [2002] QDC 205 McGill DCJ considered the meaning of a 'no win, no fee' retainer and concluded that, in the absence of qualification by agreement, solicitors retained on that basis were not entitled to recover costs exceeding the amount of any judgment or settlement.

Improper coaching of witnesses costs defendant its judgment

In its judgment on April 11, 2005, in Day v Perisher Blue Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 110, the NSW Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the District Court in favour of the defendant. The main ground for the decision of the Court of Appeal related to the conduct of the defendant's solicitors and its witnesses prior to trial. The Court subsequently referred the matter to the Legal Services Commissioner.

Practice and procedure : solicitors' liens for costs

In Patterson v Cohen [2005] NSWSC 635 Hamilton J examined the authorities in relation to what are commonly called 'fruits of litigation' liens. The judgment provides a very useful summary of the principles which apply.

Party to litigation insolvent company - costs order against non-party liquidator

In Kimtran Pty Ltd v Downie [2003] QDC 043 the court allowed in part an appeal from the refusal by the Queensland Building Tribunal to order the respondent liquidators pay the appellants' costs of proceedings in the Tribunal. The decision involved an examination of authorities which have considered the circumstances in which it is in the interests of justice to make an order for costs against a non-party.

Costs order against company in liquidation unlikely to be effective indemnity

In Kimtran v Downie [2003] QCA 424, the Queensland Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from the decision of a District Court judge who had ordered costs against a non-party liquidator. It held that the court's decision in relation to the awarding of costs against a liquidator was not constrained by the decision of the of the Court of Appeal in Mahaffey v Belar Pty Ltd [1999] QCA 2 in the manner stated in the District Court.

Counting the costs : assessments under the UCPR

In McCoombes v Curragh Queensland Mining Ltd [2001] QDC 142 the court considered a number of significant issues in relation to assessments of costs under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The Court of Appeal subsequently declined an application for leave to appeal the decision under s118(3) of the District Court Act 1967 (McCoombes v Curragh Queensland Mining Ltd [2001] QCA 379. The judgment in the District Court, and on some matters the subsequent observations in the Court of Appeal, provide clarification in respect of many issues relating the assessment of costs under the UCPR.

Should the court direct that costs ordered to be recovered on the indemnity basis be assessed by reference to a costs agreement between the successful party and their solicitors?

The decision in Hook v Boreham & QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2006] QDC 304 considered whether the court should go further than order that costs be assessed on the indemnity basis, but should also specify the basis by which those indemnity costs should be determined. The decision makes it clear that under r704(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, questions of that nature are ordinarily preserved to the discretion of the Registrar.

Receivers' future liability for costs

In Juniper Property Holdings No.15 Pty Ltd v Caltabiano [2015] QSC 95, Jackson J considered what he described as a 'novel point' as to whether the court had jurisdiction to make a determination of the liability of receivers and managers appointed to the plaintiff to pay any costs orders that may be made in favour of the defendant.