Des Forges v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2002] QCA 111

22032002 T16/LZG14 M/T COA56/2002 1 [2002] QCA 111 COURT OF APPEAL McMURDO P Appeal No 9759 of 2001 PETER DES FORGES Appellant (First Respondent) and BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL Respondent (Second Respondent) and PRINCIPAL PROPERTIES PTY LTD Respondent (ACN 072 279 675) (Applicant) Appeal No 9760 of 2001 KANGAROO POINT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, KENNETH FLETCHER, PAVEL FORMAN, JURINA FORMAN, GAEL PHILLIPS, JAMES SIMMERS, NERIDA SIMMERS, UNA CRAIG, BARRY MARANTA, FLORENCE DYER, DOUGLAS FORBES, VALENTINA ARISTON, NICHOLAS LAWS, EDNA DENIELLE DALY, SEAN DALY, RAYMOND RIDDELL, BRADLEY HOLMES and VANESSA HOLMES Appellants (First Respondents) -- 1 of 3 -- 22032002 T16/LZG14 M/T COA56/2002 2 and BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL Respondent (Second Respondent and PRINCIPAL PROPERTIES PTY LTD Respondent (ACN 072 279 675) (Applicant) BRISBANE ..DATE 22/03/2002 JUDGMENT -- 2 of 3 -- 22032002 T16/LZG14 M/T COA56/2002 3 JUDGMENT THE PRESIDENT: I am authorised by the other members of the Court to deliver the following reasons as to costs. Judgment was delivered in this matter yesterday. The parties were given until 12 noon today to deliver any submissions as to costs. The only submissions received were those of the appellant. Those submissions were served on the respondents. The appellant contends that whilst unsuccessful in the appeal it should not have to pay the costs of the second respondent because the second respondent supported its application for leave and its appeal. Whilst counsel for the second respondent made some helpful submissions, these really did not go beyond the submissions made by the appellant. The second respondent could simply have abided the order of the Court. Whilst the second respondent was entitled to separate legal representation, the appellant should not be liable for the costs of that representation. In the circumstances the appropriate order as to costs in each appeal is that the applicant/appellant pay the costs of the first respondent to be assessed and that there is no order as to the second respondent's costs. That is the order of the Court as to costs. ----- -- 3 of 3 --