Anderson v McKay [1995] QSC 126

State SC q_,/IJ-b=u :X) Q) q~ Reporting Bureau TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS (Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau.) SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION DEMACK J No 16 of 1994 (Formerly Plaint No 85 of 1991) PETER NEIL ANDERSON and BARBARA CATHERINE McKAY MACKAY .. DATE 22/03/95 ORDER Plaintiff Defendant -1 -- 1 of 3 -- 220395 Tl/RT M/T MKY116/95 (Demack J) HIS HONOUR: Mr Mellick advises me that the parties have agreed on the amount which the plaintiff ought to recover in the action but they are not agreed in respect of the question of costs. The agreed figure for the plaintiff's damages is $160,000. The action commenced in the District Court and was transferred to this Court. The action, as it progressed yesterday, was one in respect of which the issue of liability was quite strongly contested. I had formed tentative views in relation to the evidence, which, of course, could only be tentative because I had not heard the defendant's evidence. But certainly as at the end of yesterday's evidence it seemed to me that the likely result was that there would be an apportionment of liability arising out of the circumstances of the accident. The extent of that apportionment would have depended, to a large extent, on how the defendant's evidence stood up. However, the nature of the road at the particular incident was such that it could easily be a case where the parties were equally at fault. This would seem to me to something that would have weighed heavily on the plaintiff's legal advisers when they commenced the application to transfer to this Court. So far as the plaintiff's damages are concerned, they would certainly have been in an amount in excess of $200,000. But it seems to me the issue of substantial contribution was always a very live one. However, the question of which Court costs should be allowed 2 ORDER 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 2 of 3 -- 220395 Tl/RT M/T MKY116/95 (Demack J) at this point is not really a matter of judging the reasonableness of the plaintiff's advisers in having the matter transferred to this Court. The issue is much simpler than that. It is a question of what is the amount that is recovered and whether that amount is below $200,000 or not. Obviously, if it is only slightly below $200,000, then the 10 Court may, in its discretion, allow costs on the Supreme Court scale. However, here, it seems to me, the compromise is a very realistic one and indicates that the matter was always a District Court action and that cost should be ordered on the District Court scale. I order by consent that the action be adjourned to the settlement list. I order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the action, including the costs reserved in the District Court on 28 October 1991, taxed on the appropriate District Court scale. 3 ORDER 20 30 40 50 60 -- 3 of 3 --