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.

Setting aside default judgment - whether applicant must file affidavit providing direct evidence of defence 'on the merits'

In Prus-Butwilowicz v Moxey [2002] QDC 166 the court examined the question whether an applicant for an order setting aside a default judgment was required to file an affidavit providing direct evidence of a defence 'on the merits' and whether the position had changed under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

Disclosure of documents and limitation of actions

This article considers the decisions in Stephan v NRMA Insurance Limited [2001]QDC 002 and Bertha v Dragut [2001] QDC 003

Legal professional privilege and disclosure under UCPR - recent cases

This article examines the decisions in Galway v Constable [2001] QSC 180 and Mazelow Pty Ltd v Herberton Shire Council [2001] QSC 250

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.

Gratuitous services - Civil Liability Act 2003 s59

The article considers the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Kritz v King [2006] QCA 351, which examined for the first time s59 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) in relation to claims for damages for gratuitous services.

Laying equitable claims to rest : key concerns in estate litigation post death

Equitable claims now increasingly arise in Australian estate litigation, particularly in conjunction with family provision applications.

Developing graduate TPACK capabilities in initial teacher education programs: Insights from the Teaching Teachers for the Future Project

There is increased accountability of initial teacher education (ITE) programs in Australia to develop Graduate teachers who are better prepared. Most ITE programs have been designed using Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Informed by the growing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) research, this journal article suggests that ITE programs need to develop Graduate teachers who have the TPACK capabilities to use technologies to support teaching and student learning. Insights from the research and evaluation of the Teaching Teachers for the Future (TTF) Project, which was guided by the TPACK conceptualisation, are provided. The TTF Project, which involved all Higher Education Institutions providing ITE programs in Australia, drew upon the TPACK conceptualisation. The TTF Project research and evaluation included the development and administration of a TTF TPACK Survey and the implementation of the Most Significant Change Methodology. Key findings resulting from the employment of these methodologies are summarised to provide guidance to inform the improvement of ITE programs to develop Graduate TPACK capabilities.

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.

Amendments potentially time-barred : A practical approach

In Mineral Resources Engineering Services Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Meakin Investment Trust v Commonwealth Bank of Australia: Hay v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2015] QSC 62 Philip McMurdo J considered challenges to amended statements of claim in two related actions. The amendments were potentially time-barred and his Honour considered in particular the date from which the amendments should take effect.

Costs assessor selection: A question of timing, or cost?

In Lessbrook Pty Ltd (in liq) v Whap; Stephen; Bowie; Kepa & Kepa [2014] QCA 63 the Queensland Court of Appeal dealt with significant questions of general application relating to the appointment of assessors to conduct an assessment of costs under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR).

From court to QCAT, or not

In Sutton v Tang [2015] QDC 191 Reid DCJ considered the circumstances that may be relevant to the exercise of the discretion to order a transfer of a proceeding to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the tribunal) under s53 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (the Act).

Can a court protect an ex-addict from themselves?

In Hewitt v Bayntum & Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2015] QSC 250 the court was asked to sanction a compromise of a proceeding by a plaintiff who, though a recovering drug addict, was able to give instructions and understand the proposed compromise.

Costs assessment not an each-way bet: Radich v Kenway [2014] QDC 60

In Radich v Kenway [2014] QDC 60 McGinness DCJ considered issues relating to the assessment of costs under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). This recent costs assessment case from the District Court clearly illustrates the interplay between the relevant elements of the Legal Profession Act 2007 and Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999.

Keeping clear on costs: Geatches v Anglo Coal (Moranbah North Management Pty Ltd) [2014] QSC 106

In Geatches v Anglo Coal (Moranbah North Management Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 106, a dispute arose in the context of an assessment of costs as to the meaning to be attributed to particular terms of settlement and discharge signed by the parties. The court was required to consider the implications of those documents, and of a subsequent consent order intended to reflect the agreed settlement. Recovery of costs - terms of settlement and discharge exclude recovery of costs against one party and require other party to pay costs of claim against it - whether only subsequent consent order should be construed - implications where costs were common and mixed costs - whether costs should be apportioned