Broadbeach Motor Inn, Re [1999] QSC 69

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND Brisbane OS 10806 of 1998 Before the Hon. Mr Justice Mackenzie [re: Broadbeach Motor Inn] IN THE MATTER of A DEED OF CONSENT TO SECURITY DATED 3 JULY 1996 AND THE BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITYMANAGEMENT ACT and IN THE MATTER of THE BODY CORPORATE "BROADBEACH MOTOR INN" COMMUNITYTITLES SCHEME 16849 (FORMERLYBUP 102974) COSTS ORDER - MACKENZIE J. Judgment delivered 30 March 1999 CATCHWORDS: ";Counsel: Solicitors: Hearing date: COSTS - letting agreement with body corporate - proceedings of the specialist adjudicator - costs dependent on outcome. Mr J. Bell QC for the applicant Mr D. Mullins for the first and second respondents Mr J. Sweeney for the third respondent Mr C. Carrigan for the fourth respondent Mallesons Stephen Jaques for the applicant Phillips Fox as town agent for Attwood Marshall for the first and second respondents Hickey Lawyers for the third respondent Hunt & Hunt as town agent for McDonald Balanda & Arcuri for the fourth respondent 7 December 1998 [1999] QSC 69 -- 1 of 3 -- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND Brisbane Before the Hon. Mr Justice Mackenzie [re: Broadbeach Motor Inn] OS 10806 of 1998 . ~ IN THE MATTER of A DEED OF CONSENT TO SECURITY DATED 3 JULY 1996 AND THE BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT and IN THE MATTER of THE BODY CORPORATE "BROADBEACH MOTOR INN" COMMUNITY TITLES SCHEME 16849 (FORMERLY BUP 102974) COSTS ORDER - MACKENZIE J. When the reasons for judgment were published in this matter, I foreshadowed that I was inclined to make a costs order which would be governed by the outcome of proceedings before a specialist adjudicator concerning the validity of a purported termination of a letting agreement. Time was given to the parties to make further written submissions, especially since there was an agreement between the applicant and the fourth respondent not to seek adverse costs orders against each other. Those written submissions were made in due course. Having considered them, I am satisfied that I should adhere to the principle upon which I proposed to act, subject to modifications to reflect the arrangement between the applicant and the fourth respondent and the possibility of an appeal from the specialist adjudicator's decision. The following orders are made: l. If: (a) at the conclusion of the proceedings, the specialist adjudicator in the applications commenced by G & M Gooley Holdings Pty Ltd or, upon appeal a District Court, has -- 2 of 3 -- 2 decided the applications or either of them on the basis that the letting agreement dated 1 July 1996 remained on foot notwithstanding the resolution of the body corporate dated 20 March 1998; or (b) the applications or either of them are otherwise revolved on the basis that the said resolution did not effectively terminate the said agreement; or (c) the applications or either of them are not proceeded with and G & M Gooley Holdings remains as letting agent; or (d) the applications or either of them do not proceed and G & M Gooley Holdings Pty Ltd or any other person receives consideration of any kind in return for G & M Gooley Holdings ceasing to act as letting agent; the first, second and third respondents pay the applicant's and the fourth respondent's costs of and incidental to the application to be taxed; 2. If at the conclusion of the proceedings the specialist adjudicator or, upon appeal, a District Court, has decided the applications or either of them or subject to paragraphs 2( c) and (d) they are otherwise terminated on the basis that the letting agreement was validly terminated pursuant to the resolution of the body corporate dated 20 March 1998, the applicant pay the first second and third respondents' costs of and incidental to the application to be taxed, and that there be no order as to the costs of the fourth respondent. -- 3 of 3 --