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.

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.

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.

Insights into special costs orders : WA court examines compliance and retrospectivity

In Walter v Buckeridge [No.5] [2012] WASC 495 Le Miere J considered an application by the defendants for special costs orders under the applicable legislation in Western Australia. Aspects of the decision may be of persuasive value in dealing with similar issues under Queensland legislation.

Court finds solicitor in breach of fiduciary duty owed to client but loss not caused by the breach

A solicitor owes fiduciary obligations to his or her client including the obligations of loyalty and disclosure. The Court of Appeal in Mantonella Pty Ltd v Thompson (2009) 255 ALR 367; [2009] QCA 80; BC200902311 recently considered when the fiduciary duty owed by a solicitor to a client is breached and the consequent liability of the solicitor...

Child complainants and the court process in Australia

In recent years, it has been recognised that child complainants in the criminal justice system can experience difficulties over and above those of other complainants and that children can experience the court process as extremely traumatising. This can be exacerbated if children are complainants in child sexual offence matters and if they have to give evidence against a family member. This paper has three primary aims. First, it outlines the major factors that contribute to making court processes harrowing for child complainants. Second, it outlines some of the main initiatives that have been introduced to address these factors. Finally, it weighs up the evidence about initiatives designed to assist child complainants and concludes that such initiatives have had only limited practical impact for child complainants in the criminal justice system. The limited impact is attributed to the need to balance the rights of the accused with consideration for the complainant, a failure to translate legislative changes into practice, the impact of judicial discretion and/or a focus on protecting child complainants at the expense of increasing convictions.

Court finds negligent dental treatment not an intentional act intended to cause harm : Dean v Phung

NSW Supreme Court decision - claim resulting from alleged damaging dental treatment of healthy teeth - failure of plaintiff to prove dishonest and fraudulent behaviour - assessment of damages.

Court stands firm on disclosure via subpoena

In Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd v Gooden [2014] QDC 22 Reid DCJ considered the interaction of the procedures under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)relating to disclosure by parties to a proceeding and the subpoena process, in the context of a proceeding commenced by originating application.

Using the internet to assist court processes : delivery of justice in an electronic age

This article presents an overview of two aspects of the role the internet now plays in the court system - first, the extent to which judges, administrators and court officials at the different levels in the court hierarchy are using the internet to deliver enhanced access to the Australian justice system for the community as a whole, and second, how they have embraced that same technology as an aid for accessing information for better judgment delivery and administration.

Federal Court Rules 027 r 11 - Subpoena to give evidence

In Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Rural and General Insurance Let [2004] FCA 933, Gyles J considered what he described as "a novel question", namely, whether taking steps to prepare to give oral evidence when subpoenaed to attend for that purpose, including the obtaining of legal advice and assistance, could be recovered by the witness under O 27 r 11 of the Federal Court Rules

Practice and procedure - District Court Act 1967 s79 - transfer of proceeding pending in Magistrates Court to District Court

In Lambert v Surplice [2004] QDC 092 McGill DCJ considered the extent to which the court should exercise a discretion on an application under s79 of the District Court Act 1967 to transfer a proceeding pending in the Magistrates Court to the District Court.

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