Costs on review - what charges are appropriate?

In Picamore Pty Ltd v Challen [2015] QDC 067 McGill DCJ considered the nature of a review under r742 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) in the context of a review of a costs assessment conducted under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). His Honour increased the amount that had been allowed by the costs assessor for a number of items. The judgment includes observations about what may appropriately be charged for particular items of legal work.

Trial by jury election less of a trial

In Kencian v Watney [2015] QCA 212 the Queensland Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against the decision in Watney v Kencian & Wooley [2014] QSC 290 and ordered, pursuant to r475(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) that the trial proceed as a trial by jury.

No variance for filed orders: Hayes v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] QCA 260

In Hayes v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] QCA 260 the Queensland Court of Appeal examined the relationship between rules 7 (extending and shortening time) and 667 (setting aside) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), and held that r667(1) does not enable the court to set aside or vary an order after the order has been filed. The court found that, to the extent that this conclusion was contrary to the decision in McIntosh v Linke Nominees Pty Ltd [2010] 1 Qd R 152, the decision in McIntosh was wrong and should not be followed.

Right to trial by jury - construction of Uniform Civil Procedure r474

In Smit v Chan [2001] QSC 493 (Supreme Court of Queensland, S1233 of 1995, Mullins J, 21.12.2001) the sixth defendant successfully obtained an order that a complex medical negligence action be tried without a jury. This was the first application to be decided under r474 of UCPR 1999, and the decision is a significant precedent for defendants in similar cases who want to avoid the unpredictability of outcome and the inflated damages awards sometimes associated with jury trials.

Practice and procedure - Disclosure of documents - application of UCPR r222 to documents referred to in exhibit to affidavit

In Century Drilling Limited v Gerling Australia Insurance Company Pty Limited [2004] QSC 120 Holmes J considered the application of a number of significant rules impacting on the obligation to disclose under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999

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.

Pace of Civil Litigation in the Queensland Supreme Court

The overriding philosophy of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 in Queensland is to facilitate the just and expeditious resolution of the issues in a civil proceeding at minimum expense. The court is enjoined to apply the rules to avoid undue delay, expense and technicality. Parties impliedly undertake to the court and each other to proceed expeditiously. These rules adopt management theories developed to contain delay and cost in the civil justice system. A survey was designed to determine whether the overriding objective is being achieved in practice. The results indicate a reduction in the time from initiation of a proceeding to termination as compared to a sample of similar cases determined under the repealed Rules of the Supreme Court.

Interrogatories - Who may be interrogated

In Pacific Century Production Pty Ltd v Netafirm Australia Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 043 the court was asked for the first time to consider the application of rule 229(1)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (the UCPR)

Pleadings

The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules have brought significant changes to the rules of pleading. The rules place a heavy emphasis on 'truth in pleading', and early identification of the true issues between the parties. There are now a number of pleading rules dealing with specific issues. The changes in the rules are most significant with respect to the level of particulars required for pleading damages, and the facts that must be pleaded in defences. In this article the rules of pleading are examined and contrasted with the rules applicable before the commencement of the UCPR.

Obvious error in approach to default costs assessment

The decision of Henry J in Ginn & Anor v Ginn; ex parte Absolute Law Lawyers & Attorneys [2015] QSC 49 provides clarification of the approach to be taken on a default costs assessment under r708 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999

Rules of civil procedure for the United States District Courts. : Hearing[s] Seventy-fifth Congress, third session, on S.J. Res. 281, a joint resolution to postpone the effective date of the Rules of civil procedure.

[pt.1] Hearing, April 18, 1938.--pt.2. Hearing, May 19, 1938.

District Court debt decisions

This article examines the distinction between a "liquidated demand" and a claim for "unliquidated damages" and the implications of that distinction on the procedure for obtaining a judgment if the defendant fails to file a notice of intention to defend.

A nod to consent : in step with the UCPR

This article considers the decision of Robin DCJ in CTP Manager Limited v Ascent Pty Ltd [2011] QDC 74 and the likely impact of the decision on the practice in the court registries in similar circumstances.

Application to set aside statutory demand

In C & E Pty Ltd v Corrigan [2006] QCA 47, the Queensland Court of Appeal considered whether r103 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules applied to the service of an application to set aside a statutory demand under s459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The decision provides analysis and clarification of an issue that has clearly been one of some uncertainty.

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.