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.

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.

PI claim clears the statute bar

In Hughes v Impulse Entertainment Pty Ltd & Workcover Queensland [2013] QDC 21 the plaintiff commenced a proceeding more than 60 days after the compulsory conference under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The question to be determined was whether this meant the claim was statute-barred under that Act, even though the relevant limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) had not expired

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.

Service difficulties - Will UCPR r 117 provide the answer?

In Amci Pty Ltd ACN 124 249 485 v Corcoal Management Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 50 Jackson J considered an application for an order under r117 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) in relation to informal service of an originating process on a corporation registered in the Ajman Free Zone in the United Arab Emirates. The decision appears to be the first time a Queensland court has examined the scope of r117 of the UCPR, and relevant considerations influencing the exercise of the discretion under the rule, when the defendant is outside Australia.

Offers to settle - by the rules

In Balnaves v Smith [2012] QSC 408 Byrne SJA concluded that an offer to settle could be an “offer to settle” under Chapter 9 Part 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) despite the inclusion of non-monetary terms. His Honour took a different approach to that taken by Moynihan SJA in Taske v Occupational & Medical Innovations Ltd [2007] QSC 147.

Pleading - self-incrimination and penalty privileges

In Anderson v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2012] QCA 301 the Queensland Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from the decision of the primary judge (ASIC v Managed Investments Ltd No 3 [2012] QSC 74. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that the defendants’ non-compliance with the pleading rules in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) was justified by the claims to privilege against self-incrimination or exposure to a penalty.