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

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.

Costs - UCPR rr 681 and 684

In BHP Coal Pty Ltd v K Orenstein & Koppel AG (No 2) [2009] QSC 64 McMurdo J considered the circumstances in which the ordinary rule under r 681 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) that costs should follow the event should be departed from in favour of a party who was unsuccessful overall, but who succeeded on particular questions. When the court is satisfied that a departure from the usual order under r 681 of the UCPR is justified, it appears increasingly willing to exercise the power in r 684(2) to declare what percentage of costs was applicable to a particular issue

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).

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.

Offer to settle in an originating application : is it an offer under the UCPR?

Sheryl Jackson looks at the decision of Justice McMeekin in Northbound Property Group Pty Ltd v Carosi (No.2) [2013] QSC 189.

Settlement offers on appeal : when might costs be awarded on the indemnity basis?

In Roberts v Prendergast [2013] QCA 89 the respondent had offered to settle the appeal, purporting to make the offer under Chapter 9 Part 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). Differing views were expressed in the Court of Appeal regarding the impact in the circumstances of the offer to settle, with the majority concluding that the appellant should pay the respondent’s costs on the standard basis.

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.

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.