Dew v Suncorp Life & Superannuation Ltd [2000] QSC 183

State Reporting Bureau scoo/133 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 JONES J No 13 of 1999 JUDY ANNE DEW and SUNCORP LIFE AND SUPERANNUATION LTD CAIRNS .. DATE 31/01/2000 JUDGMENT lili Fl1111r, The l.:1w Courts, Cc11q!,e S!rn:1, Bri~;J1;111t•, Q. ~()()() Applicant/Plaintiff Respondent/Defendant -- 1 of 3 -- 31012000 D.1 T4/VMC M/T CNS058/2000 (Jones J) HIS HONOUR: This is a matter in which the parties have agreed upon the substantial part of the application, namely the signing of a request for a trial date, but there remains the question of costs of the application. The request for the trial date ·was forwarded to the solicitors for the defendant on 10 November 1999. According to its terms, it required the document to be returned duly signed by 8 December 1999. The defendant refused to sign that on the basis that they had not yet received advice from counsel, but that in any event they were not in a position to sign the request on an unconditional basis because they required the claimant to be further medically examined. On that date the defendant/s solicitors advised that they were prepared to sign the request on the basis that there be no 10 20 30 subsequent objection to that medical examination taking place. 40 That offer was rejected by the solicitors for the claimant but it is the basis upon which the substantial matter has now been resolved. In a sense, the competing' arguments for costs of the so application are that there has been delay on the one hand, of obtaining counsel/s advice on the part of the defendant, and against that, it is argued that this application was premature because the claimant has now accepted the resolution of the substantive matter on the basis that it was proposed in December, shortly before this application was made. .TT Tf'I (.!Mv.N'T' GO -- 2 of 3 -- I!.' 31012000 D.1 T4/VMC M/T CNS058/2000 (Jones J) Weighing the competing merits of these arguments, and taking into account the fact that the new Rules encourage the speedy and least expensive resolution of issues between the parties, it seems that the appropriate order that ought to be made on the question of costs, is that it be the plaintiff's costs in IO the cause. 20 30 40 so 60 3 JUDGMENT -- 3 of 3 --