• Level 5, Evandale Place, 142 Bundall Road, Bundall, QLD, Australia

Blog

What if both the plaintiff and the defendant win something?

From time to time in litigation, the Plaintiff will succeed to some extent on its claim and the defendant will succeed to some extent on its counterclaim. When that happens, who bears the costs? The answer depends on a number of issues including the conduct of the parties, the extent of success enjoyed by the respective parties, and in particular whether offers were made. As a result, it is critical in litigation to make sensible offers so as to give yourself the best protection as to costs. As an example, the recent outcome of a building dispute litigated in the District Court was that the plaintiff builder (who had sued for over $600,000) succeeded on its claim to the extent of under $60,000 plus interest, and the defendant (who had counterclaimed for about $550,000) succeeded to the extent of about $65,000. The matter involved both senior and junior counsel for both sides, with the hearing occupying in excess of 15 days. As a result, the costs of each party are likely to be very significant. In this matter a decision as to costs is yet to be made, however the Court has indicated that an order that each party bear their own costs may be appropriate, and has invited submissions as to costs. If one of the parties had made a strong offer that they have bettered in the decision – eg if the plaintiff had offered to pay the defendant $20,000 and its costs, or the defendant had made an offer to pay the plaintiff a small amount or to walk away and bear its costs – then depending on the terms of the offer and who made it (there are different rules for plaintiffs’ offers and defendants’ offers, also some offers are made outside of the rules), they could be awarded costs and the amount of those costs might exceed $200,000. Regardless, ultimately the costs decision will be enormously significant for the parties, who are likely to have invested substantial sums into the litigation. The decision can be found here https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2022/QDC22-224.pdf For advice in relation to building disputes, please contact Justin Mathews who is an accredited specialist in commercial litigation and a registered adjudicator for building disputes, justinm@qbmlaw.com.au

High Court guidance on question of employee vs contractor applied

The Fair Work Commission has determined an unfair dismissal application made against Deliveroo having regard to recent High Court guidance in respect of the question of whether a person is an employee or contractor. The test now focuses more on the terms of the written contract in question, but retains the ever important factors of the extent of control by the alleged employer over the activities of the alleged employee, whether the alleged employee is supplied equipment, and the ability of the contractor to delegate without consent. More than ever the terms of the written contract will be critical to the determination of the capacity of the contracting party. The decision can be found here https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2022fwcfb156.htm For questions concerning employment and services contracts, please contact Gul-e-Raana Rizvi or Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au

Land Tax amendments shelved

Reported locally under the particularly adventurous headline “Premier keeps Dick in the Dark”, the amendments to Queensland’s land tax laws proposed by treasurer Cameron Dick have been shelved, at least for the time being. Those amendments would have seen the value of interstate landholdings included when calculating the overall land holdings of an owner, resulting in an added liability many owners.

One for the history buffs

A recent decision of the Queensland Supreme Court considered whether Beatrice Lane in Brisbane City is public or private land. While delving into matters concerning rights of way and easements often involves looking into the history of the land, this matter was unusual in that the relevant facts started from when the subject land was first offered for sale in 1851 – before Queensland was a colony in its own right (December 1859), and when it was still part of the colony of New South Wales, no doubt seen by many Queenslanders as Something Of Which We Do Not Speak. That of itself wasn’t of any real significance in the matter, but the decision does have a fascinating (for some) explanation of the various historical dealings with the property and 19th century land law. https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2022/QSC22-190.pdf QBM Lawyers advise in relation to land dealings and interests, including the obtaining and extinguishment of easements and rights of way. For any enquiries about those matters, contact Peter Muller peterm@qbmlaw.com.au