Weststate Private Hospital Limited v Lautaret Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] QSC 14

Hopgood Ganim Lawyers for the fourth interlocutory respondent

[1] By way of an application dated 12 December 2024 the plaintiff applied for various orders, including an order that the first to fifth interlocutory respondents be joined to proceeding number 2371 of 2024.

[2] By consent, an order was made on 11 December 2025 that the first, second, third and fifth interlocutory respondents be joined as the sixth to ninth defendants to the proceeding number 2371 of 2024 and costs were reserved. The application that the proceeding be heard and determined with proceeding number 1590 of 2022, and that evidence in one proceeding be evidence in the other proceeding, has been adjourned.

[3] The plaintiff now no longer seeks to proceed with the application to join the fourth interlocutory respondent to proceeding number 2371 of 2024, as separate proceedings have been commenced by the plaintiff against the fourth interlocutory respondent (proceeding number 5397 of 2025) (Separate Proceedings).

[4] The costs of the application to join the fourth interlocutory respondent remain in issue between the plaintiff and the fourth interlocutory respondent.

[5] Pursuant to orders made on 11 December 2025, the fourth interlocutory respondent and the plaintiff filed submissions and affidavit material and the issue of costs is to be dealt with on the papers.

[6] The fourth interlocutory respondent seeks an order that:

(a) the application to join the fourth interlocutory respondent is dismissed; and

(b) the plaintiff pay the fourth interlocutory respondent's costs of the application on the indemnity basis.

[7] The plaintiff opposes the costs order sought and proposes in the alternative that:

(a) the costs be reserved; or

(b) the fourth interlocutory respondent pay the plaintiff's costs; or

(c) the costs be costs in the Separate Proceedings and reserved.

(a) What is the appropriate order in respect of the application by the plaintiff to join the fourth interlocutory respondent?

(b) What is the appropriate costs order?

What is the appropriate order in respect of the application by the plaintiff to join the fourth interlocutory respondent?

[10] By the application, the plaintiff sought an order that the fourth interlocutory respondent be joined as a party to the proceeding on the basis that the fourth interlocutory respondent was a proper party pursuant to r 69 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) or s 87CH of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).

[11] Directions were made for objections to joinder and for submissions and supporting material to be filed and served. Various complaints were raised about the pleading against the various proposed defendants, including by the fourth interlocutory respondent.

[12] Due to the various pleading issues that were raised, the joinder application was adjourned until the challenges to the pleadings were dealt with.

[13] Despite the plaintiff maintaining that there was a proper basis to join the fourth interlocutory respondent, the plaintiff commenced the Separate Proceedings on 24 November 2025. The plaintiff submits this was done to avoid any potential time bar issues and further delays given the application for joinder may not have been dealt with until 2026.

[14] On 24 November 2025 following the filing of the Separate Proceedings, the plaintiff notified the fourth interlocutory respondent that the plaintiff did not intend to proceed with the joinder application against the fourth interlocutory respondent, and also intended to seek that the costs of the joinder application be costs in the Separate Proceedings.

[15] The plaintiff appears to want to keep its options open and seeks that the application be adjourned, separate to any order in respect of costs.[1] This appears to be on the basis that there has been no determination of the joinder application and some of the other relief sought may be relevant even though the Separate Proceedings have been commenced.

[16] The effect of the commencement of the Separate Proceedings is that the causes of action and claims in respect of the fourth interlocutory respondent are now pleaded in the Separate Proceedings. Whilst there may be some differences between the pleadings, the Separate Proceedings have the effect of replacing the proposed proceeding against the fourth interlocutory respondent if they were joined as a party to BS 2371 of 2024.

[17] In these circumstances, it is appropriate to regularise the application against the fourth interlocutory respondent and give effect to the plaintiff's articulated position that the joinder application will not be proceeded with.

[18] Accordingly, it is appropriate to order that the plaintiff's application filed 12 December 2024, in so far as it concerns the fourth interlocutory respondent, be dismissed.

[19] Whilst there may need to be consideration as to whether all related proceedings should be heard together, any such application needs to be made in the context that now there is a separate proceeding against the fourth interlocutory respondent.

"(1) Costs of a proceeding, including an application in a proceeding, are in the discretion of the court but follow the event, unless the court orders otherwise.

(2) Subrule (1) applies unless these rules provide otherwise."

[22] Further, Rule 702 of the UCPR provides that unless the rules or an order of the court provides otherwise, costs are assessed on the standard basis. Pursuant to Rule 703 of the UCPR the Court may order costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis.

[23] The fourth interlocutory respondent contends that there is no reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event and it is appropriate that the plaintiff pay the fourth interlocutory respondent's costs of the application.

[24] Further, the fourth interlocutory respondent submits that the costs should be on the indemnity basis in all of the circumstances, including as follows:

(a) The joinder application was "doomed to fail" as the proposed statement of claim did not properly disclose a cause of action against the fourth interlocutory respondent.

(b) The fourth interlocutory respondent raised relevant issues in correspondence, including deficiencies with the proposed pleading and put the plaintiff on notice that indemnity costs would be sought.

(c) The plaintiff did not accept the fourth interlocutory respondent's offer of 1 April 2025.

[25] The plaintiff points to authorities where there has been no determination on the merits and the appropriate costs order is that there be no order as to costs.[2] Ultimately, this is part of the broad discretion that the Court has in respect of costs.

(a) The costs application is premature, and costs should be reserved.

(b) Alternatively, the fourth interlocutory respondent should pay the plaintiff's costs given the unreasonable resistance to joinder and the rejection of the plaintiff's offer to make costs of the application costs in the Separate Proceedings.

(c) Alternatively, the costs should be costs in the Separate Proceedings and be reserved.

[27] The relevant event is the joinder of the fourth interlocutory respondent to proceeding BS2371 of 2024. The plaintiff has been unsuccessful.

[28] Whilst there may be issues to be considered about whether the Separate Proceedings should be heard and determined with proceeding number 2371 of 2024 and proceeding number 1590 of 2022, that is not raised on the current application.

[29] The proceedings, and the application, were case managed and there were a number of pleading issues that needed to be heard and determined. Further, during 2025 there were also other factual developments that impacted the conduct of the proceedings.

[30] Various informal offers were made by the plaintiff and the fourth interlocutory respondent. I am not satisfied that the informal offers provide a proper basis for the award of indemnity costs or for a departure from the usual costs order.

[31] The circumstances are to some extent analogous with a discontinuance by the plaintiff, which would give rise to the liability to pay costs on the standard basis up until the discontinuance. The application in respect of the joinder of the fourth interlocutory respondent is not proceeding given the commencement of the Separate Proceedings.

[32] Here, the fourth interlocutory respondent incurred costs in considering and responding to the application. At least some of the costs incurred by the fourth interlocutory respondent would be referable to the joinder application only. Some of the costs incurred may be common to both the joinder application and the Separate Proceedings. However, there is not a sufficient basis to conclude that latter outweighs the former. The circumstances do not warrant the fourth interlocutory respondent being deprived of the ability to recover costs on the effective discontinuance of the joinder application.

(a) it is not appropriate to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event; and

(b) there is not a sufficient basis to conclude that indemnity costs are warranted in all of the circumstances.

[34] Accordingly, the appropriate costs order is that the plaintiff pay the fourth interlocutory respondent's costs of the application filed on 12 December 2024 on the standard basis.

1. In so far as it concerns the fourth interlocutory respondent, the plaintiff's application filed on 12 December 2024 is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff pay the fourth interlocutory respondent's costs of the application filed on 12 December 2024 on the standard basis.

[1] [26(a)] of the plaintiff's submissions dated 16 December 2025.

[2] Australian Securities Commission v Aust-Home Investments Ltd [1993] FCA 585; (1993) 44 FCR 194 at 201; Westpac Banking Corporation v Jamieson [2015] QCA 84 at [32] per Applegarth J; Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; ex parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622; [1997] HCA 6; ONE.TEL Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 101 FCR 548; [2000] FCA 270; Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 162 at [7].