Adelaide Bank Limited v Teni & Anor [2005] QSC 40
1
WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal
offence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for
their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those
categories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings.
[2005] QSC 040
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CIVIL JURISDICTION
BYRNE J
No 8722 of 2004
ADELAIDE BANK LIMITED
(ACN 061 461 550) Plaintiff
and
TENISIO TENI
and
MARIA FERISITA TENI
First Enforcement
Debtor
Second Enforcement
Debtor
BRISBANE
..DATE 11/02/2005
ORDER
-- 1 of 5 --
11022005 T13/MMV16 M/T 2/2005 (Byrne J)
2 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
HIS HONOUR: This application is by a mortgagee of real
property: the mortgagee sought a default judgment for
recovery of possession of land following the mortgagor's
default.
Rule 286 provides that where a claim is made for judgment in
default for recovery of possession of land only, the plaintiff
may file a request for judgment "and for the costs
prescribed". That rule is contained in chapter 9, part 1 of
the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.
By rule 695:
"If a default judgment is given with costs under chapter
9, part 1, the registrar must set the costs in accordance
with the prescribed scale."
Schedule 1 contains the scale of costs applicable to
proceedings in the Supreme Court. Under the heading
"Prescribed Costs" in schedule 1 are four items. They
include:
"20: Costs on issuing a claim...
(a) by an individual" -
And then an amount is prescribed:
"(b) Claim by an entity other than an individual" -
Where a higher amount is prescribed, and:
"21: Costs of obtaining judgment in default of
appearance" -
Where again a figure is prescribed.
-- 2 of 5 --
11022005 T13/MMV16 M/T 2/2005 (Byrne J)
3 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
The plaintiff applied for default judgment. The Registrar
allowed as the costs the costs mentioned in items 20 and 21.
The applicant contends that the Registrar ought additionally
to have allowed the amount contemplated by item 18. Under the
heading "Disbursements", item 18 provides for:
"Court fees and other fees and payments to the extent
that they have been reasonably incurred and paid ..."
Relevantly, item 18 relates to Court filing fees.
The Registrar was correct in not including an item under 18,
for the "prescribed costs" proceed upon the basis that item 20
includes a component for filing fees.
The apparent intention of the items under "prescribed costs"
is to specify the sums which will be allowed without the
necessity to prepare a bill that complies with the form
anticipated by the scale of costs, making claims for
particular items such as drawing, engrossing, copying and
service. Item 18, on the other hand, is one of several
components of an ordinary bill to be prepared by reference to
claims of a kind envisaged by items 1 to 19 in schedule 1.
The result is in some respects odd. On this approach, more
might be allowed under schedule 2 - which concerns District
Court proceedings - in respect of judgments by default. That
is because not only is there provision in Schedule 2 for the
costs of judgment by default in an amount exceeding $600 in
broadly comparable circumstances but also the Registrar may
-- 3 of 5 --
11022005 T13/MMV16 M/T 2/2005 (Byrne J)
4 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
include other allowances and - see 88(c) - "All necessary out
of pocket expenses."
As it happens, those who have prescribed the costs to be
awarded appear to have proceeded upon the assumption that item
20 includes the filing fee on the originating process.
Progressive increases in the prescribed filing fees have
mirrored increases in item 20.
In 2002, the filing fees were altered to provide a new
structure in respect of fees payable on the commencement of
the kind of originating process which has resulted in the
judgment with which I am concerned.
Previously, the same filing fee - $220 - was payable whether
the claim was by an individual or a corporation. In 2002,
however, the new filing fees became, put shortly, for an
individual $420; and otherwise $840.
In 2001, the "prescribed costs" recoverable on a default
judgment ($485) did not distinguish between an individual and
a corporation. In 2002, the prescribed costs were increased
as follows: for an individual $717; otherwise $1,137.
There have since been other increases but it is sufficient to
refer to the distinction between 2001 and 2002 to make the
point.
-- 4 of 5 --
11022005 T13/MMV16 M/T 2/2005 (Byrne J)
5 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
In 2001, when the filing fees were $220, $485 was allowed
under item 20; that is to say the professional cost component
amounted to $265. In the next year, when the filing fee for
an individual was $420, $717 was the prescribed costs on
issuing the claim by an individual. The difference is $297.
In respect of a corporation, however, when the filing fee was
$840, the amount allowed under item 20(b) for such a claim was
$1,137. Again, this is a difference of $297.
This comparison makes it plain that the "prescribed costs"
were bifurcated to distinguish between a claim by an
individual and a claim by an entity other than an individual
because of the change to the filing fee structure. And the
fact that the differential between the filing fee and the
total amount allowed on the claim under item 20 is the same
$297 demonstrates that those responsible for the calculation
of the prescribed costs proceeded upon the basis that they
were distinguishing between claims by individuals from those
of others because of the new filing fees.
Mr Mills, in his comprehensive submissions, has drawn
attention to several of the curiosities which follow from the
exclusion of an item 18 component in the costs assessment.
One has already been mentioned. These difficulties, however,
will need to be raised with the Rules Committee and
ultimately with Government if they are to be redressed.
...
-----
-- 5 of 5 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QSC/2005/040