Laing v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board (No 2)

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Laing v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board (No 2) [2011] QSC 352

PARTIES:

RICHARD NORMAN LAING
(Applicant)

v

SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND REGIONAL PAROLE BOARD
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 5153 of 2011

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application – Further orders

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

23 November 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 September 2011

Further written submissions received on 25 October 2011

JUDGE:

McMurdo J

ORDER:

The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE-COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – COSTS OF WHOLE ACTION – GENERALLY – where the applicant’s application was dismissed – where the respondent sought its costs – whether costs should follow the event

COUNSEL:

No appearance for the applicant

LM Reibelt (sol) for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the applicant

Crown Solicitor for the respondent

On 27 September 2011, I ordered that the application for statutory order of review be dismissed. The respondent’s lawyer sought costs. Because the applicant is a prisoner without legal representation, I requested the respondent’s lawyer to provide him with a submission on costs allowing him time to respond. Those submissions were served on 29 September 2011. No response has been received.

There is no reason why costs should not follow the event. The applicant may not be in a position to satisfy this order but that provides no sufficient reason not to make it. It is ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, Laing, the applicant, contested a decision made by the Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board, the respondent, regarding his parole. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The applicant sought to overturn the decision of the respondent which denied his parole application.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether the respondent should be awarded costs, given the dismissal of the applicant’s application. The general rule in Australian law is that costs follow the event, meaning that the losing party is typically ordered to pay the winning party’s costs. However, the tribunal also has the discretion to order that costs follow an exception to this general rule.

The tribunal held that the general rule of costs following the event should apply in this case. Given the dismissal of the applicant’s application, the tribunal found it appropriate to order the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings. This decision aligns with the standard principle that the unsuccessful party should bear the costs of the litigation.

Accordingly, the tribunal ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings. This outcome reflects the tribunal’s adherence to the general principle of costs following the event, affirming the respondent’s position in the matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Laing v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board (No 2) [2011] QSC 352
PARTIES:	RICHARD NORMAN LAING (Applicant) v SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND REGIONAL PAROLE BOARD (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 5153 of 2011
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application – Further orders
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court
DELIVERED ON:	23 November 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 September 2011 Further written submissions received on 25 October 2011
JUDGE:	McMurdo J
ORDER:	The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE-COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – COSTS OF WHOLE ACTION – GENERALLY – where the applicant’s application was dismissed – where the respondent sought its costs – whether costs should follow the event
COUNSEL:	No appearance for the applicant LM Reibelt (sol) for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the applicant Crown Solicitor for the respondent