Credit Corp Services Pty Ltd v Martin [2026] QMC 4

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: DIVISION: Credit Corp Services Pty Ltd v Martin [2026] QMC 4 CREDIT CORP SERVICES PTY LTD (Plaintiff) V BERND WALTER MARTIN (Defendant) M16634/25 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: 27 April 2026 DELIVERED AT: Gympie HEARING DATE: On The Papers MAGISTRATE: Magistrate Hughes ORDERS: 1. The Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the Applications on a standard basis. 2. The Plaintiff file and serve an Affidavit in compliance with Practice Direction No. 18 of 2010 providing particulars and quantifying costs sought to be fixed. 3. The Court will fix costs or order costs be assessed by an assessor not before 4.00pm on 6 May 2026. CATCHWORDS: CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - COSTS – -- 1 of 5 -- 2 INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS – PAYABLE FORTHWITH – where application to strike out or stay – where Court may award costs – where costs usually follow the event – where no special circumstances to support different order - where successful party entitled to costs – where applications were unnecessary, prolix and without merit - where applications were contrary to parties’ implied undertaking to proceed in an expeditious way – where unnecessary incursion upon Court’s limited resources – where Court’s resources in high demand – where plaintiff required to consider and respond to voluminous material – where much material was repetitive and unnecessary – where plaintiff did not file affidavit to fix costs - where costs to be fixed or assessed on a standard basis Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 681, r 683, r 702 Aon Risk Services Pty Ltd v ANU (2009) 239 CLR 175 Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioner (1949) 78 CLR 62 Oshlock v Richmond River Council [1998] 193 CLR 72 Peter Carter Transport Pty Ltd v The Swansaway 2 Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 109 Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No. 2) [2010] QCAT 412 Spencer v Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118 SOLICITORS: Piper Alderman for the Plaintiff Defendant in person What should the Order for costs be? [1] Bernd Martin unsuccessfully sought Orders to strike out or stay Credit Corp’s claim and to set aside or stay a Notice of Non-Party Disclosure. [2] Having received submissions from the parties, the remaining issue for me to determine is whether I should award costs. -- 2 of 5 -- 3 [3] Costs usually follow the event.1 This means that a successful party is entitled to recover its reasonably incurred costs from the unsuccessful party. [4] Mr Martin’s applications were without merit. He has been wholly unsuccessful. Because costs follow the event, the onus is on Mr Martin to show special circumstances to justify a different order.2 [5] Nothing in Mr Martin’s submissions show special circumstances to support a different order. Specifically: (a) Credit Corp’s failure to provide him the instrument upon which its claim depends is a matter of evidence. It would be disclosed as part of the usual pre-trial process. A failure to produce it prior to the commencement of proceedings did not provide grounds for an application for strike-out or stay; (b) The purpose of costs is not to punish the unsuccessful party. The premise for an award of costs is that it is just and reasonable that a party who causes another to incur costs should reimburse that other party. Mr Martin’s unsuccessful applications to strike out and stay caused Credit Corp to incur unnecessary costs;3 (c) Mr Martin’s raising of complex questions of law does not mean he acted reasonably in proceeding with his Applications. The existence of complex questions of law and fact is the very reason not to bring a strike out application (and his incidental application for a stay);4 and (d) That Mr Martin believes he has an arguable case to the substantive proceeding did not provide grounds for a strike out application (or his application for a stay) – triable questions of law and fact are properly determined at a full hearing on the merits.5 [6] Despite filing lengthy material to support his applications, none of the issues raised by Mr Martin could have formed the basis for applications to strike out or stay. [7] Mr Martin submitted he did “what any defendant in his position would be entitled do: challenge the Plaintiff’s standing before submitting to the jurisdiction and expense of a full hearing.”6 That is not so. Mr Martin’s applications were unnecessary, prolix and without merit. [8] By filing the applications, Mr Martin failed to act in his own best interests. He also required Credit Corp to expend time and resources to respond. He 1 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), 681(1). 2 Oshlock v Richmond River Council [1998] 193 CLR 72. 3 Oshlock v Richmond River Council [1998] 193 CLR 72. 4 Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioner (1949) 78 CLR 62. 5 Spencer v Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118. 6 Defendant’s Written Submissions On Costs dated 27 April 2026. -- 3 of 5 -- 4 also incurred upon the Court’s limited resources. He also proceeded contrary to the parties’ implied undertaking to the Court and to the other parties to proceed in an expeditious way.7 [9] Had Mr Martin been legally represented, I would have considered awarding Credit Corp its costs on an indemnity basis. Filing unnecessary, prolix and unmeritorious applications curtails the expeditious resolution of the substantive proceedings and other more worthy applications. They are to be discouraged. It is an unnecessary incursion upon the Court’s limited resources. The Court’s resources for the resolution of disputes are in high demand and serve the public, not merely the parties to the proceedings.8 [10] Mr Martin submitted that the Court make no order as to costs or they be stayed pending the outcome of the full hearing. Requiring a successful party to pay or forbear their own costs in meeting arguments without merit is neither fair nor in the interests of justice. This is because it forces the successful party to incur costs unnecessarily.9 [11] Credit Corp was required to consider and respond to voluminous material filed by Mr Martin to support his applications. Much of it was repetitive or unnecessary. Credit Corp has successfully resisted Mr Martin’s applications. It had to spend money to do that. It should be awarded its costs in having to do so. [12] Mr Martin noted that Credit Corp is legally represented and was concerned about costs being incurred at “commercial solicitor rates.”10 The usual position is that costs are awarded on a standard basis.11 Credit Corp’s costs will be awarded on the standard basis and limited to those costs that were reasonably necessary to achieve the outcome. [13] The Courts encourage the fixing of costs.12 This is to avoid the time, trouble, delay and expense of an assessment.13 Unfortunately, Credit Corp has not filed any material to assist the Court to fix costs. [14] In particular, where practicable a party should verify on affidavit its realistic estimate of its recoverable costs, particularly for claims exceeding $50,000.14 Because Credit Corp has not done this, I will now order that it do so. Depending on the amount claimed, I will then fix costs or order they be independently assessed. [15] I therefore make these Orders: 7 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5(3). 8 Aon Risk Services Pty Ltd v ANU (2009) 239 CLR 175, 217. 9 Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No. 2) [2010] QCAT 412, [56]. 10 Defendant’s Written Submissions On Costs dated 27 April 2026. 11 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 702. 12 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), 683(2). 13 Peter Carter Transport Pty Ltd v The Swansaway 2 Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 109. 14 Practice Direction 18 of 2010. -- 4 of 5 -- 5 1. The Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the Applications on a standard basis. 2. The Plaintiff file and serve an affidavit in compliance with Practice Direction 18 of 2010 providing particulars and quantifying the costs sought to be fixed by 4.00pm on 6 May 2026. 3. The Court will fix costs or order costs be assessed by an assessor on a standard basis not before 4.00pm on 6 May 2026. -- 5 of 5 --