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.

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.

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.

A clear view of costs ‘of and incidental to’ : Mio Art Pty Ltd v Macequest (No.2) Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 271

In Mio Art Pty Ltd v Macequest (No.2) Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 271 Jackson J provided considered analysis of several aspects of costs law. His Honour regarded various orders which are commonly sought or made as reflecting practice that is inappropriate or unnecessary under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR).

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.

Offer to settle a taxing question

This article considers the implications of the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Commissioner of Taxation v Clark (No 2). In that case the Court examined the position of the Commissioner of Taxation as a litigant. In particular, the court examined the significance of the commissioner's duty to administer taxation legislation on the court's exercise of discretion relating to costs orders when offers to settle have been made.

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.

The Workcover Queensland Act: exploring injured workers payout options : Part 1

The article provides an overview of the provisions of Chapter 5 of the Workcover Queensland Act 1996 (Access to damages), and of the matters which, consequent on these provisions, practitioners must evaluate when advising an injured worker contemplating the commencement of a common law action for damages.

Comparative analyses of change orders costs in transportation construction

Transportation construction is substantially different from other construction fields due to widespread use of unit price bidding and competitive contract awarding. Thus, the potential for change orders has been the main source of unbalanced bidding for contractors, which can be described as substantial increases in work quantity or reasonable changes to the initial design provided by the State Highway Agencies (SHAs). It is important to understand the causes of the change orders as cost related issues are the main reason for contract disputes. We have analyzed a large dataset from a major SHA to identify project related and environmental factors that affect the change order costs. The results of the study can be instrumental in assessing the increased costs associated with change orders and better management measures can be taken to mitigate their effects.

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.

Exposure to pesticides, ill health and averting behaviour : costs and determining the relationship

Farmers' exposure to pesticides is high in developing countries. As a result many farmers suffer from ill-health, both short and long term. Deaths are not uncommon. This paper addresses this issue. Field survey data from Sri Lanka are used to estimate farmers' expenditure on defensive behavior (DE) and to determine factors that influence DE. The avertive behavior approach is used to estimate costs. Tobit regression analysis is used to determine factors that influence DE. Field survey data show that farmers' expenditures on DE are low. This is inversely related to high incidence of ill health among farmers using pesticides.