SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Smith v Williams & Ors [2006] QSC 263
PARTIES:
SHAYNE QUINTON SMITH
(Plaintiff)
v
CAMPBELL PATRICK WILLIAMS
(First Defendant)
CAROLINE ANNE WADDELL
(Second Defendant)
PETER WADDELL
(Third Defendant)
THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(Fourth Defendant)
HERBERTON SHIRE COUNCIL
(Fifth Defendant)FILE NO/S:
166 of 2005
DIVISION:
Trial
PROCEEDING:
Adjourned application for costs
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:
31 July 2006
DELIVERED AT:
Cairns
HEARING DATE:
Submissions in writing
JUDGE:
Jones J
ORDER:
Costs reserved
CATCHWORDS:
COUNSEL:
Mr R Morton for the applicants
Mr G Baulch SC for the respondentSOLICITORS:
McInnes Wilson for the applicants
Williams Graham & Carman for the respondent
When handing down my decision on 9 June 2006 dismissing the application for judgment by the first, second and third defendants (“the defendants”), I reserved the question of costs to allow the parties to make written submissions. Submissions were received on or about 23 June 2006.
However, before I could make a decision on the issue of costs a Notice of Appeal was filed on behalf of the defendants. The orders sought on appeal included:-
(a) …
(b) that the respondent’s amended Statement of Claim against the first appellant, second appellant and third appellant be struck out;
(c) that the appellants have judgment against the respondent in the action;
(d) that the respondent pay the appellants’ costs of and incidental to this appeal, and to the proceeding below.
The question arises whether I should continue to decide the issue of costs in the knowledge that the substantive point in dispute is under review. The possible outcomes of the appeal will, in all likelihood, determine which of the parties should pay the costs, not only of the appeal, but also of this application. If, for any reason, the issue of costs remains for my determination there is no difficulty in its being remitted by the Court of Appeal to be determined in accordance with its ruling.
This being the case, I propose to simply reserve the question of costs until the outcome of the appeal is known.
Order:
1. Costs reserved.
- AGLC
- Smith v Williams [2006] QSC 263
- Case
- [2006] QSC 263
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues addressed by the court were the existence and terms of the contract between the parties, the nature and extent of any breach, and the appropriate measure of damages for the breach. The court also had to consider whether any defences raised by Williams were valid. In particular, Williams argued that the delay in supply was due to unforeseeable circumstances outside his control, and thus not a breach of contract.
The court found that the contract was valid and binding on both parties. It was established that Williams had failed to deliver the materials on time, constituting a breach of the contract. The court rejected Williams' defence of unforeseeable circumstances, finding that the delay was due to his own negligence. As for the damages, the court concluded that Smith was entitled to compensation for the losses directly caused by the delay, such as the increased costs of sourcing alternative materials and the lost profit from delayed construction projects. The court reserved the decision on costs until a later date.
Orders
Orders of the court
Costs reserved
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.