Cadman v Raddatz [1993] QMW 209

• ---- --- IN THE WARDENS COURT AT BRISBANE. QLD. IN THE MATTER OF FOR APPLICANT: FOR OBJECTOR: DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION FOR COSTS BY M.J.CADMAN. (APPLICANT FOR MLA 50020) MR. J. COSTELLO of Counsel, Instructed by Messrs. Camino & Caminos, solicitors. MR. G. HUDDLESTON, solicitor of McMahon, Pearson and Associates, for Mr. D.J.Raddatz. Mining Lease Application No. 50020 was before the Wardens Court at Stanthorpe on 14 October 1993 in relation to the requirement of the Hon. the Minister for Minerals and Energy for the applicant to supply further information. This request is set out in a letter dated 3 July 1992. It will be noted that over 12 months have passed since the request was made, and the matter has been brought on by the Court in an attempt to finalise the matter. It is also noted that the applicant and the objector have certain civil proceedings currently in the District Court jurisdiction. However, there appears to be little or no progress towards a resolution of that action. On 14th October 1993, the applicant CADMAN appeared in order to produce further evidence by way of affidavit to satisfy the requirements of the Hon. the Minister. Mr. Huddlestone, solicitor for the objector, appeared and requested an adjournment of proceedings pending an outcome of the District court action. Mr. Costello opposed the application. The application for adjournment was refused, and Mr. Costello proceeded with his material. Subsequently Mr. Costello requested an adjournment in order to swear his affidavit material, and applied for an order for costs in relation to his resistance to the application for adjournment. [1993] QMW 209 -- 1 of 2 -- The question of costs was reserved to 8th November 1993. On 8th November 1993, Mr. Costello sought his costs on the earlier application in the sum of $807. 00 . Mr. Raddatz appeared in his own behalf and argued against an order for costs as the matter had been adjourned anyway. While it is correct to say that the matter was adjourned to another date, it was adjourned at the request of the applicant in order to finalise his material, and not at the request of Mr. Huddleston to adjourn the matter until the superior Court proceedings had been finalised. The reasons for the refusal were given on 1 4 October 1 9 9 3 . In effect Mr. Costello for the applicant CADMAN prepared to argue against the application for adjournment and was successful on that point. I therefore consider that costs should follow and accordingly I award costs to the applicant miner CADMAN against the objector RADDATZ. In considering the quantum of any order, I note that the application for Mining Lease 50020 is not quantified, but the current action initiated by the objector in the District Court is in the vicinity of $50,000, from memory. The argument on the adjournment was not one of great 1 egal complexity, and I am of the opinion that Item 6(f) of the Magistrates Court Scale of costs , Column F, is the appropriate scale. Item 6 (f) Counsels fees on trial or hearing not being a chamber application. Column F - $807.00 Dated at Brisbane this 26th day of November 1993. F.W.WINDRIDGE MINING WARDEN. -- 2 of 2 --