PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS –
COSTS – TAXATION AND OTHER FORMS OF ASSESSMENT–
where the costs
assessor signed but did not file an initial certificate of costs assessment
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS –COSTS – TAXATION AND OTHER FORMS OF ASSESSMENT–where the costsassessor signed but did not file an initial certificate of costs assessment– where the costs assessor subsequentlysigned and filed a furthercertificate purporting to absorb the first – whether a costs assessor isfunctus officio upon signinga certificate of costs assessment – whetherthere is power under the UCPR or general law for a costs assessor to issue acorrectedor further certificate in respect of the same costs orders –whether the interests of justice warrant the Court fixing costsUniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 687, r 713,r720, r 734, r 737, r 742Australian Coal & Shale Employees’Federation v The Commonwealth [1953] HCA 25(1953) 94 CLR 621Australian
Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) v Atlantic 3 Financial (Aust) Pty
Ltd [2008] Qd R 298
Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson
(No. 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119
CBI Constructors Pty Ltd v
Chevron Australia Pty Ltd (2024) 419 ALR 126
CGA Law Pty Ltd v
Diane Lawyers Pty Ltd [2022] QSC 92
Innes v Electoral Commission of
Queensland [2022] QSC 122
Minister for Immigration &
Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597
[2002] HCA
11
Wentworth v Wentworth (Court of Appeal (N.S.W.), 21 February 1996,
unreported)
Judgment (2 paragraphs)
[1]
The application for review is dismissed.
The application for fixed costs is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of both applications.[2]
[2]
[2] The respondent sought costs of the application for review on the indemnity basis but after hearing argument I determined the standard basis to be the appropriate award.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
21 Broadbeach Blvd Pty Ltd
Respondent/Defendant:
Body Corporate for Oceana on Broadbeach [2026] QSC 58
Legislation Cited (1)
Civil Procedure Rules 1999
Cases Cited (6)
[3] The applicant applies under UCPR r 742 for a review of the costs assessor's decision to issue the January and March Certificates. This contested application is underpinned by the notion that the costs assessor proceeded upon a wrong principle (Australian Coal & Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth[1953] HCA 25; (1953) 94 CLR 621) because he had no power to issue two certificates for one assessment. The applicant seeks to have both certificates set aside and the assessment remitted to another costs assessor to carry out the assessment according to law.
r 737). When the January Certificate was signed, the costs assessor had not assessed all costs the subject of the application for assessment, and he had not completed his appointed task. He had therefore not reached the "end of the assessment". In these circumstances, the January Certificate was not a legally effective decision: Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj(2002) 209 CLR 597; [2002] HCA 11 at [8] and [11]-[15] (Gleeson CJ), [53] (Gaudron and Gummow JJ). The costs assessor was still required to finish his appointed task pursuant to the Registrar's order. He could not be functus officio with respect to matters with which he had not dealt with in the January Certificate: CB1 Constructors at [28] (Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Gleeson JJ)