Griffiths v Bradshaw (No 2)

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Griffiths v Bradshaw (No 2) [2015] QSC 194

PARTIES:

PETER GRIFFITHS

(applicant)

v
JAN LAUREL BRADSHAW

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 12194 of 2013

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 June 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 June 2015

JUDGE:

Philip McMurdo J

ORDER:

Delivered ex-tempore on 25 June 2015:

Order as per draft as amended.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – whether special circumstances exist for award of costs against servient owner under s 180(6) of the Property Law Act 1974

Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 180(6)

COUNSEL:

C Jennings for the applicant

M O Jones for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Russells Law for the applicant

Murdoch Lawyers for the respondent

The applicant seeks the costs of his proceeding from the respondent. Section 180(6) of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) provides that in a case under this section, the court shall not, except in special circumstances, make an order for costs against the servient owner. The applicant submits that there are special circumstances.

The respondent submits that there are no special circumstances warranting an order for costs against her. Further, she submits that the applicant should pay her costs.

The factors which are relevant to each of these submissions are as follows:

(a)The respondent’s case, although unsuccessful, was arguable, the case ultimately turning upon questions of degree.
(b)The respondent acted honestly.
(c)The respondent offered to pay more than $100 000 towards the construction of a new road, in order to avoid this litigation.
(d)The respondent did not resist the proceeding in order to secure some financial gain.
(e)The case was appropriately conducted by each side at the trial.
(f)The respondent permitted the continued use of these roads during the progress of the proceeding.
(g)The respondent was motivated to refuse access for reasons which were unrelated to the use of the roads.

Of those factors, all but the last are in the respondent’s favour. As to the last factor, the respondent was motivated by her grievance about the controversy relating to the bore. That may or may not have been a justifiable grievance and the court should not explore it in the present context.

With these matters considered, special circumstances are not established for the imposition of an order for costs against the respondent. However, the applicant has been successful and having conducted its case appropriately, should not have to pay costs. In my conclusion, there should be no order for the costs of the proceeding and there’ll be an order as per that amended draft.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Griffiths v Bradshaw (No 2) involved a dispute between the appellant, Griffiths, and the respondent, Bradshaw, concerning the assessment of costs in relation to a property dispute. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The primary issue before the Court was whether the general rule that costs follow the event applied, or if there were special circumstances warranting an award of costs against the servient owner under section 180(6) of the Property Law Act 1974. The Court was tasked with determining whether the respondent's conduct warranted such an order, given that the respondent had abandoned a claim that was ultimately found to be unfounded.

The Court considered the nature of the respondent's claim and the circumstances under which it was abandoned. It was noted that the respondent had initially pursued a claim that was later deemed to be without merit. The Court assessed whether the respondent's actions amounted to special circumstances that justified departing from the general rule. The analysis focused on whether the respondent's conduct was vexatious, oppressive, or an abuse of the Court process, and whether the appellant had been prejudiced by the respondent's actions.

In its judgment, the Court concluded that the respondent's conduct did not constitute special circumstances warranting an order for costs against the servient owner. The Court found that while the respondent's claim was ultimately unsuccessful, there was no evidence to suggest that the claim was brought in bad faith or that it amounted to an abuse of the Court process. As such, the general rule that costs follow the event was upheld. The Court did not find that the appellant had been prejudiced by the respondent's actions to a degree that would warrant an exception to the general rule.

The final orders of the Court were delivered ex tempore on 25 June 2015, and the draft orders were amended accordingly. The Court upheld the general principle that costs follow the event and did not grant the appellant an order for costs against the respondent under section 180(6) of the Property Law Act 1974. The case underscores the importance of the general rule in cost assessments and the high threshold for departing from this principle.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Griffiths v Bradshaw (No 2) [2015] QSC 194
PARTIES:	PETER GRIFFITHS (applicant) v JAN LAUREL BRADSHAW (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 12194 of 2013
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	25 June 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 June 2015
JUDGE:	Philip McMurdo J
ORDER:	Delivered ex-tempore on 25 June 2015: Order as per draft as amended.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – whether special circumstances exist for award of costs against servient owner under s 180(6) of the Property Law Act 1974 Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 180(6)
COUNSEL:	C Jennings for the applicant M O Jones for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Russells Law for the applicant Murdoch Lawyers for the respondent