Practice and Procedure : UCPR r 7 - power to extend time

In McIntosh & Anor as Trustees of the Estate of Camm (A Bankrupt) v Linke Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor [2008] QCA 410 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered the extent of the court’s power under r 7(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (“UCPR”) to extend time, and in particular whether the rule applied so as to permit extension of the period specified under rule 667 for varying or setting aside an order. The case also provides an illustration of circumstances in which the court might be expected to depart from the general principle that a successful litigant is entitled to the costs of the litigation.

Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) : costs agreement between law practice and client - whether binding on non-associated third party payer

The decision in the New South Wales Supreme Court in Boyce v McIntyre [2008] NSWSC 1218 involved determination of a number of issues relating to an assessment of costs under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW). The issue of broad significance was whether a non-associated third party payer must pay the fixed fee that was agreed between the law practice and the client. The court found that the client agreement did not form the basis of assessing costs for the non-associated third party payer.

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 s 27(1) – duty of respondent to give information and documents

In Hare v Mount Isa City Council [2009] QDC 39 McGill DCJ examined the scope of s 27(1) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) and its interpretation by the Court of Appeal in Haug v Jupiters Ltd [2008] 1 Qd R 276. The judge expressed a number of concerns about the Act and the Regulation made under it, that are worthy of consideration by the Legislature.

Costs - UCPR rr 681 and 684

In BHP Coal Pty Ltd v K Orenstein & Koppel AG (No 2) [2009] QSC 64 McMurdo J considered the circumstances in which the ordinary rule under r 681 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) that costs should follow the event should be departed from in favour of a party who was unsuccessful overall, but who succeeded on particular questions. When the court is satisfied that a departure from the usual order under r 681 of the UCPR is justified, it appears increasingly willing to exercise the power in r 684(2) to declare what percentage of costs was applicable to a particular issue

Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 253 – whether refusal to stay execution of costs is an order “as to costs only”

In Virgtel Ltd v Zabusky [2009] QCA 92 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered the scope of an order “as to costs only” within the meaning of s 253 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) (‘the Act”). The Court also declined to accept submissions from one of the parties after oral hearing, and made some useful comments which serve as a reminder to practitioners of their obligations in that regard.

Setting aside default judgment - whether judgment regularly or irregularly entered - service under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s109X(1) - requirements for affadavit of service

In Hill v Robertson Suspension Systems Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 165 McGill DCJ considered the procedural requirements for the service of originating process on a company, and for proving that service for the purpose of obtaining default judgment.The judge’s views adopt a strict and technical construction of the requirements for an affidavit of service under r 120(1)(b). Though clearly obiter, they may well affect the approach taken on applications to enter or set aside default judgments in the lower courts. Pending further judicial consideration of the issue, it is suggested the prudent course is to ensure that the deponent of an affidavit for service effected under s 109X(1)(a) of the Act deposes not only to the location of the registered office of the company but also, at a minimum, provides the source of that information.

UCPR 229 - defamation proceedings – damages to be assessed – application to interrogate as to defendant’s motive - implications of Defamation ACT 2005 - application to interrogate before action - when in the interests of justice

In Hogan v Ellery [2009] QDC 154 McGill DCJ considered two applications for leave to deliver interrogatories under r 229 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). The judgment provides useful analysis of the circumstances in which a plaintiff may obtain leave to deliver interrogatories to a defendant in defamation proceedings, and also to a non-party before action.

Disclosure obligations on ex parte application for freezing order - duty of practitioners to the court - failure to comply with duty - serious dereliction of duty to court - supplemental order for costs against solicitors personally

The decision of Applegarth J in Heartwood Architectural & Joinery Pty Ltd v Redchip Lawyers [2009] QSC 195 (27 July 2009) involved a costs order against solicitors personally. This decision is but one of several recent decisions in which the court has been persuaded that the circumstances justified costs orders against legal practitioners on the indemnity basis. These decisions serve as a reminder to practitioners of their disclosure obligations when seeking any interlocutory relief in an ex parte application. These obligations are now clearly set out in r 14.4 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Rule 2007 and r 25 of 2007 Barristers Rule. Inexperience or ignorance will not excuse breaches of the duties owed to the court.

Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 253 - leave to appeal costs orders - appeal against substantive judgment insufficient - must be arguable case that discretion will be overturned on appeal

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in AGL Sales (Qld) Pty Ltd v Dawson Sales Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 262 provides clear direction on the Court’s expectations of a party seeking leave to appeal a costs order.This decision is likely to impact upon common practice in relation to appeals against costs orders. It sends a clear message to trial judges that they should not give leave as of course when giving a judgment in relation to costs, and that parties seeking leave under s 253 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) should make a separate application. The application should be supported by material presenting an arguable case that the trial judge made an error in the exercise of the discretion of the kind described in House v King (1936) 55 CLR 499. A different, and interesting, aspect of this appeal is that it was the first wholly electronic civil appeal. The court-provided technology had been adopted at trial, and the Court of Appeal dispensed with any requirement for hard copy appeal record books.

Request for production of documents – UCPR r 222 – manner of compliance

In John Kallinicos Accountants Pty Ltd v Dundrenan Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 141 Irwin DCJ considered the nature of a party’s obligation under r 222 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) to produce documents referred to in the parties’ pleadings, particulars or affidavits. The decision examined whether the approach in Belela Pty Ltd v Menzies Excavation Pty Ltd [2005] 2 QdR 230 in relation to disclosure of documents under UCPR r 214 also applied to production of documents under r 222.

Court-provided trial presentation technology : the way of the future?

The trial in Covecorp Constructions Pty Ltd v Indigo Projects Pty Ltd (File no BS 10157 of 2001; BS 2763 of 2002) commenced on 8 October 2007 before Fryberg J, but the matter settled on 6 November 2007 before the conclusion of the trial. This case was conducted as an “electronic trial” with the use of technology developed within the court. This was the first case in Queensland to employ this technology at trial level. The Court’s aim was to find a means to capture the key benefits which are offered by the more sophisticated trial presentation software of commercial service providers, in a way that was inexpensive for the parties and would facilitate the adoption of technology at trial much more broadly than has been the case to date.

Trial by jury in civil proceedings : “convenience” and the philosophy of the UCPR

In Syddall v National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Limited [2008] QSC 101 Daubney J ordered the action be tried without a jury. His judgment considered the circumstances in which a trial involves any technical, scientific or other issue that can not be “conveniently” considered and resolved by a jury as provided in r 474 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

UCPR r 360 – offers to settle – joint offer by first and second plaintiffs

The decision in ACN 070 037 599 Pty Ltd v Larvik Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] QSC 118 involved a consideration of the implications for a plaintiff whose offer to settle under Part 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) was made jointly with another plaintiff who abandoned her action before trial. The court found nothing wrong with the making of a joint offer. It concluded the successful plaintiff would be entitled to indemnity costs on the simple test of whether the judgment for that plaintiff was more favourable than the offer.

UCPR r243 - notice of non-party disclosure - obligation to state allegation to which documents sought are directly relevant

In Deppro Pty Ltd v Hannah [2008] QSC 193 one of the matters considered by the court related to the requirement in r 243 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) that a notice of non-party disclosure must “state the allegation in issue in the pleadings about which the document sought is directly relevant.”The approach adopted by the issuing party in this case of asserting that documents sought by a notice of non-party disclosure are relevant to allegations in numbered paragraphs in pleadings, and serving copies of the pleadings with the notice, is not uncommon in practice. This decision makes it clear that this practice is fraught with danger. In circumstances where it is not apparent that the non-party has been fully apprised of the relevant issues the decision suggests an applicant for non-party disclosure who has not complied with the requirements of s 243 might be required to issue a fresh, fully compliant notice, and to suffer associated costs consequences.

Practice and procedure - solicitor's retaining lien

The judgment of Daubney J in Magnamain Investments Pty Ltd v Baker Johnson Lawyers [2008] QSC 245 provides guidance on a number of aspects concerning the scope and maintenance of a solicitor’s retaining lien for costs.