Christensen v Christensen [1999] QCA 63

[1999] QCA 63 COURT OF APPEAL McMURDO P McPHERSON JA SHEPHERDSON J Appeal No 5239 of 1998 VALERIE JOYCE CHRISTENSEN Appellant/Applicant (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF JOHN FREDERICK CHRISTENSEN) v. NEIL STEPHEN CHRISTENSEN Respondent BRISBANE DATE 09/03/99 JUDGMENT THE PRESIDENT: The appellant, Mrs Christensen, part way through her submissions indicated that she wished to adjourn this appeal in order that she could make an application to the Judge below, Justice Demack in Rockhampton, for leave to appeal his order as to costs under section 253 Supreme Court Act 1995. After some discussion with the Judges and having noted that a further order as to costs thrown away by the adjournment could well be made against her today if she pursued that course, she withdrew her application for an adjournment. The hearing then proceeded and the appeal in substance and as to costs of the appeal was heard in full. Whilst making her reply, she then -- 1 of 2 -- 2 renewed her application for an adjournment so that she could seek leave from Justice Demack as to the costs order below. Because of the lateness of her application during the reply, because there is nothing unusual about the order made below and because, in any case, it seems to me it would be very unlikely that she would be given leave at this late stage, I would refuse the application for an adjournment, which would simply result in even more costs being expended in what has been an expensive and unfortunate time for both parties. McPHERSON JA: I agree. I would simply add emphasis by referring to the fact that the application for an adjournment has been renewed only after the argument on the appeal had been concluded and at a time when perhaps it was possible to see which way the wind was blowing. It may also be worth mentioning that there is, to my mind, some little doubt as to whether the learned Judge who heard the matter at first instance, once the order has been made and no application for leave to appeal against costs has been attempted at that stage, can, at this late stage after an appeal has been instituted, go on to give the leave sought. It is, however, not necessary for me to investigate that question further but simply to say that I agree with the reasons which the President has given for refusing this application for an adjournment. SHEPHERDSON J: I agree with the orders proposed by the President and with the reasons which she has given and the reasons given by Mr Justice McPherson. THE PRESIDENT: The application for an adjournment is refused. Our decision is reserved. -- 2 of 2 --