ATG Projects and Property Solutions Pty Ltd v Bright Days Herston Pty Ltd [2026] QMC 9

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: ATG Projects and Property Solutions Pty Ltd v Bright Days Herston Pty Ltd [2026] QMC 9 PARTIES: ATG Project & Property Solutions Pty Ltd (Applicant) v Bright Days Herston Pty Ltd (Respondent) FILE NO/S: M-2775/25 DIVISION: Civil PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Brisbane Magistrates Court DELIVERED ON: 12/06/26 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane Magistrates Court HEARING DATE: On the papers MAGISTRATE: Pinder ORDER: I Order the Respondent pay to the Applicant - (1) Interest on the judgement sum in the amount of $3,304.42. (2) Costs on a standard basis fixed in the sum of $3,737. CATCHWORDS: INTEREST ON JUDGEMENT – COSTS – INDEMNITY OR STANDARD – FIXING COSTS Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) s 58 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 691, r 702, r 703 Delta Pty Ltd v Mechanical and Construction Insurance Pty Ltd [2019] QCA 62 Peter Carter Transport Pty Ltd & Anor v Swansway No 2 Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 109 Magistrates Court Practice Direction 15 2013 -- 1 of 6 -- 2 SOLICITORS: Thompson Geer for the plaintiff Robinson Lock for the defendant Introduction [1] I delivered a judgement in this matter on 12 November 2025 (ATG Project & Property Solutions Pty Ltd v Bright Days Herston Pty Ltd [2025] QMC 29). I gave judgement for the applicant against the respondent in the sum of $30,000. [2] In respect of interest and costs, I directed that in the event the parties were unable to agree those amounts they were to file and serve written submissions. [3] The applicant has now filed - Written submissions dated 25 November 2025 . - Affidavit Thomas Patrick McKillop sworn 25 November 2025 . [4] The respondent has not filed any further material and has not filed any written submissions. [5] The applicant’s written submissions are limited to five short paragraphs. They do not, in the conventional manner, purport to set out the applicant’s submissions as to why the orders sought ought be made. They do not address the law, nor refer the court to the relevant provision of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) or to any relevant authority. [6] The written submissions at paragraph 4 simply say ‘the applicant’s letter sets out the applicant’s position with respect to costs, including why it submits that it is entitled to indemnity costs. The applicant now repeats and relies on the contents of the applicant’s letter.’ The applicant’s solicitors’ written submissions are of little assistance. Interest [7] The court’s power to award interest up to the date of judgement is provided by s 58 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) (CPA). [8] The court may order interest to be paid at a rate the court considers appropriate.1 [9] Unless there is a proper basis for departure, the court commonly applies interest rates as set by practice direction.2 [10] Magistrates Court Practice Direction 15 of 2013 prescribes the interest rates to be applied pursuant to s 59 (3) CPA. 1 Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) s 58(8). 2 Delta Pty Ltd v Mechanical and Construction Insurance Pty Ltd [2019] QCA 62. -- 2 of 6 -- 3 [11] The applicant relies on annexure TPM-03 (exhibited to the affidavit of T.P McKillop) effectively as its submission to the court. [12] At paragraph 2.2 of that annexed letter, the interest rate claimed for three separate periods between the date the debt became payable, and the date of the judgement are set out. [13] The table claims - Cash rate - Default rate [14] I presume the default rate to be the rate prescribed by PD 15 of 2013 at paragraph 3. [15] A review of the Reserve Bank of Australia’s published cash rate for the relevant periods 11 July 2024 – 12 November 2025 confirms the amount claimed by the applicant is correct. The applicant claims interest from the date that the debt became due and payable.3 [16] I calculate the interest payable by the respondent on the judgement sum (correctly calculated at paragraph 2.2 at annexure TPM-03 ) from 11 July 2024 to 12 November 2025 in the sum of $3,304.14. [17] I order the respondent pay the applicant interest on the judgement sum in the sum of $3,304.14. Costs [18] The proceedings were commenced by originating application. The applicant sought judgement, effectively to enforce the compromise of an agreement to pay costs, pursuant to r 658 (UCPR). [19] The proceedings were defended by the respondent, following which the applicant succeeded in obtaining judgement in the full amount claimed. [20] The general rule is that costs follow the event4 and a successful party would obtain an order that the unsuccessful party pay its costs on a standard basis.5 [21] The applicant seeks orders that the respondent pay its costs on an indemnity basis. The court has the power to order costs be assessed on an indemnity basis.6 [22] As noted, the applicant’s written submissions do not identify the basis upon which the applicant contends that it ought to recover its costs on an indemnity basis. [23] Again, annexure TPM-03 at paragraphs 3.1 to 3.8 purport to set out the applicant’s contentions in respect of costs. [24] As best as can be gleaned from the letter, the applicant’s solicitors contended 3 Affidavit T.P McKillop 21 February 2025 [10]–[11]. 4 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 681. 5 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 702. 6 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 703. -- 3 of 6 -- 4 - The allegation of an overpayment (by way of set-off) raised by the respondent had been rejected and was found in the substantive reasons for the decision, not proven. - Any overpayment had not nexus to the agreement as to costs and therefore could not found a set-off, similarly found in the substantive reasons for decision. [25] The applicant’s solicitors then asserted that the respondent’s defence had no real prospects of success and gave notice of intention to seek indemnity costs.7 [26] The applicant’s solicitors, in relation to the exercise of the court’s discretion under r 703 (UCPR), for a departure for the usual position, and to order indemnity costs was expressed in these terms. A circumstance favouring the exercise of the court’s discretion under r 703(1) to order indemnity costs is where one party has placed the other one on notice of the serious flaws of their case – see for example, Thompson v Body Corporate for Arila Lodge [2019] QCA 296 and Charan Group Pty Ltd v Kaur [2011] QSC 71. [27] Unfortunately, noting the absence of any substantively advanced submissions by the applicant, the applicant simply contends that the two authorities cited justify the exercise of the court’s discretion to order indemnity costs. [28] Inconveniently, the applicant’s solicitors do not refer the court in their submissions (or in the letter adopted as their submissions) as to what portion of those two decisions are relevant to the exercise of the discretion and upon what factual basis engaged by the present matter, call for that discretion to be exercised in the applicant’s favour. [29] In Thompson v Body Corporate for Arila Lodge8 Sofronoff P referred to the well- known principles established in Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Ltd9 and Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 80110 and said These cases establish that indemnity costs can be awarded against an unsuccessful party when a proceeding has been commenced in circumstances in which the party who issued the proceedings, properly advised, should have known that they had no change of success. Of course, that a proceeding is of such character raises the discretion for exercise but the existence of that fact does not necessarily determine whether it ought be exercised.11 [30] His Honour set out the very significant grounds, which he accepted justified an order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis at paragraph 2 of the decision. [31] None of those grounds or similar grounds are advanced by the applicant, nor are they available to the applicant having regard to the findings in the substantive reasons for the decision. 7 Affidavit T.P McKillop 25 November 2025 annexure TPM-03 [3.4]–[3.7]. 8 [2019] QCA 296. 9 [1988] 81 ALR 397. 10 [1993] 46 FCR 225. 11 [2019] QCA 296 [3]. -- 4 of 6 -- 5 [32] In Charan Group Pty Ltd v Kaur12 the applicant applied to set aside a statutory demand which was dismissed as the application had not been served as required by r 112 (UCPR) and as the respondent’s solicitors had pointed out the problem with service and advised that the respondent would seek indemnity costs, the court considered that such a fundamental deficiency warranted an order for indemnity costs.13 [33] Again, no such fundamental deficiency is advanced by the applicant, and none is supported in the substantive reasons for the decision. [34] I am not satisfied that the applicant has established any proper basis for a departure from the usual position that an unsuccessful party ought pay costs on a standard basis. [35] I refuse the application that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs on an indemnity basis. [36] I order that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs on a standard basis. Fixing Costs [37] The applicant’s submissions do not identify whether the applicant seeks that its costs be fixed or assessed. [38] In the affidavit of T.P McKillop annexure TPM-03 at paragraph 3.8 (the applicant’s solicitor’s adopted submissions) the applicant says this Recovery of costs on the under $50,000 Magistrates Court scale would not be reasonable in the circumstances. For the reasons set out above our client should be entitled to cover its costs on an indemnity basis. [39] That statement is nonsensical. [40] The claim brought by the applicant and the judgement given is for $30,000. The scale of costs applicable to claims of $30,000 is scale 2 pt 2 column D. [41] As the applicant’s solicitors have not burdened the court with written submissions as to what items on the scale the applicant ought recover, doing the best I can, I would allow the following items. 1) Instructions to sue (item 1) $1,491 2) Counsels’ fees on hearing (item 8(f)) $2,246 3) Total $3,737 [42] The applicant does not set out any filing fees or other outlays sought. [43] I fix the applicant’s costs in the sum of $3,737. Disposition 12 [2011] QSC 71. 13 [2011] QSC 71 [16]. -- 5 of 6 -- 6 [44] I order the respondent pay the applicant (3) Interest on the judgement sum in the amount of $3,304.42. (4) Costs on a standard basis fixed in the sum of $3,737. Magistrate JNL Pinder 12/06/2026 -- 6 of 6 --