Lessbrook Pty Ltd (in liq) v Whap; Stephen; Bowie; Kepa & Kepa

[2014] QCA 63

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Assessment of costs
4. › Appointment of costs assessor
5. › Competing nominations by parties
6. › Relevance of hourly rates
7. › Whether primary judge erred in treating hourly rate differences as insignificant
8. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 710, 713
1. Appeal
2. › General principles
3. › Interference with discretion of court below
4. › Whether judge acted on wrong principle or failed to take into account material consideration
5. › House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Appeal from costs-related order
4. › Whether appeal from order appointing costs assessor is 'appeal only in relation to costs'
5. › Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), s 64
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Registrar's decisions
3. › Rehearing by judge under r 791 UCPR
4. › Nature of registrar's discretion in appointing costs assessor
5. › Whether registrar's discretion should be fettered by rule of thumb or practice
6. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 713, 791, 792

Quick Take

When competing costs assessors are nominated under r 713 UCPR, differences in hourly rates are a material consideration that cannot be dismissed as insignificant, given the emphasis the rules place on fees. Registrars should not adopt a rule of thumb (such as appointing the assessor whose consent was first filed) that fetters the exercise of their discretion. An appeal from a judge's order on rehearing of a registrar's costs assessor appointment is not 'an appeal only in relation to costs' under s 64 of the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991, and leave to appeal is not required.