Osaka Enterprises Pty Ltd v Seaview Pacific Pty Ltd

Supreme Court of Queensland|2010-05-31|Before: McMurdo J

[2] The plaintiff's argument is that of the four defences which were raised,[2] only one was upheld. Further, it is said that one of the others was without any foundation, because it was clearly precluded by an estoppel.[3] The question then is whether those circumstances make this case an exception to the general rule that costs should follow the event.[4] The fact that a successful party has failed on some of its arguments is not in itself a basis for departing from the general rule.[5]

[3] The hearing occupied one day. But it may be accepted that the defendant's costs were somewhat higher for having advanced these other arguments. Nevertheless, none of the arguments, including that singled out by the plaintiff in this context, was so hopeless as to justify some impact upon the ordinary rule as to costs. Importantly, the extent of the evidence, and therefore the cost involved in its preparation and presentation, would not have been significantly different had only the successful point been argued. In my conclusion the plaintiff should pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings to be assessed.

[1] Osaka Enterprises Pty Limited v Seaview Pacific Pty Limited [2010] QSC 112.

[5] As I held in Australand Corporation (Qld) Pty Ltd v Johnson & Ors [2007] QSC 128, [17] following Waterman v Gerling Australia Insurance Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 1111, [10].

Civil Procedure Rules 1999

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (6 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)