Credit Corp Services Pty Ltd v Martin [2026] QMC 5

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Credit Corp Services Pty Ltd v Martin [2026] QMC 5 PARTIES: CREDIT CORP SERVICES PTY LTD (Plaintiff) V BERND WALTER MARTIN (Defendant) FILE NO/S: M16634/25 DIVISION: Magistrates Courts PROCEEDING: Statement of Claim filed 11 September 2025 Application to Strike Out Claim for Lack of Standing filed 29 October 2025 Application to Set Aside or Stay Non-Party Disclosure filed 3 November 2025 ORIGINATING COURT: Gympie DELIVERED ON: 11 May 2026 DELIVERED AT: Gympie HEARING DATE: On The Papers MAGISTRATE: Magistrate Hughes ORDERS: The Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the Application on a standard basis fixed at $6000.00 by 4.00 pm on 26 May 2026. CATCHWORDS: CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - COSTS – INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS – PAYABLE FORTHWITH – where Court may award costs – where costs discretionary – where Plaintiff ordered to file and serve realistic assessment of costs – where Plaintiff filed estimate of costs of $21,091.90 and -- 1 of 4 -- 2 claimed $13,709.65 to respond to two unsuccessful interlocutory applications brought at early stage of proceedings – where substantiating invoices showed costs charged on hourly basis – where Plaintiff required to respond to voluminous and unnecessary material – where Defendant unrepresented - where matter not so complex to require incurring of costs at amount claimed by Plaintiff – where Defendant submitted costs should not exceed $4,500.00 - where costs at scale would require assessment - where Court should fix costs to help prevent parties incurring more resources in unnecessary skirmishes - where scale sued as guide with uplift to reflect larger amount of claim and extra care and consideration due to unnecessary material outside Court’s Directions – where costs fixed at $6,000.00 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 680, r 681, r 683, r 702, Schedule 2 Gomba Holdings (UK) Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd (No, 2) [1992] 4 All ER 588, 607 Peter Carter Transport Pty Ltd v The Swansaway 2 Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 109 Roxo v Gamble & Ors [2025] QMC 14 SOLICITORS: Piper Alderman for the Plaintiff Defendant in person What should the Order for costs be? [1] On 27 April 2026, I ordered the Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of successfully resisting two interlocutory Applications on a standard basis. Costs are always discretionary.1 [2] Because the Courts encourage the fixing of costs, I also ordered the Plaintiff to file and serve a realistic estimate of its costs.2 [3] The Plaintiff has filed an Affidavit quantifying its total costs at $21,091.90 charged on an hourly basis of $500 - $590 per hour.3 The Plaintiff has claimed 65 percent of these costs, equating to $13,709.64 65. 1 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 680, r 681; Gomba Holdings (UK) Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd (No, 2) [1992] 4 All ER 588, 607. 2 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 683, Practice Direction No. 10 of 2010. 3 Affidavit of Florian Samuel Ammer sworn 5 May 2026. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 [4] The Plaintiff attached a number of invoices to substantiate these amounts. Certainly, the Plaintiff was required to respond to voluminous material filed by the Defendant. And much of that material was unnecessary. [5] However, the Defendant is unrepresented and cannot be expected to distil his material to the level of a qualified lawyer. I also do not consider that the Application to Strike Out and Application to Set Aside or Stay Non- Party Disclosure were so complex to require the incurring of costs at the amount claimed by the Plaintiff. Both were interlocutory applications brought at an early stage of proceedings. [6] Relying on the Scale of Costs for matters over $20,000 but less than $50,000,4 the Defendant submitted costs should be quantified at no more than $4,500.00. The difficulty with this submission is that because the claim is for $88,860.83, that Scale does not apply. [7] However, the correct Scale for matters over $50,000 presents its own difficulty: it would require an assessment to accurately quantify the scale costs recoverable. That means more costs. [8] To fix that, I will fix costs. This will help prevent the parties incurring more resources in unnecessary skirmishes.5 In doing so, I adopt the observations of His Honour Judge Cash: In approaching the fixing of costs, [the Court] ought to proceed on the basis that fixing costs should not usually be difficult. It is not intended to involve the rigour of a costs assessment and can reflect a broad approach. It is desirable to fix costs and avoid the time, trouble, delay and expense that can result from assessment. This is especially the case in the Magistrates Court where the amounts involved in claims are necessarily less than in the District or Supreme Courts.6 [9] Although the Defendant did not use the correct scale, he has otherwise correctly identified the items that would normally be recoverable on a standard basis. [10] However, I will apply an uplift. This is to reflect two things. First, the larger amount of the claim. Second, the extra care and consideration required to respond to unnecessary material filed by the Defendant outside the Court’s Directions. [11] I therefore fix costs at $6,000.00. This is calculated using the Items in the Schedule 2, Part 2 as a guide: Item 1, Column D - Instructions to sue: $1,491.00 4 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), Schedule 2 Scale of Costs – Magistrates Courts, Item 1, Item 12. 5 Peter Carter Transport Pty Ltd v Swansay No. 2 Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 109, [43]. 6 Peter Carter Transport Pty Ltd v Swansay No. 2 Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 109, [47]; applied in Roxo v Gamble & Ors [2025] QMC 14 (Magistrate Pinder). -- 3 of 4 -- 4 Item 12, Column D – Applications to the court: $747.65 (x 2) General care and conduct - $3,013.70 [12] The Defendant filed more than double the material he was directed to. The uplift for general care and conduct is therefore double the costs he would otherwise had to pay. That reflects the extra time and resources incurred by the Plaintiff to respond to that material. [13] My order is the Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs fixed at $6,000.00 by 26 May 2026. -- 4 of 4 --