ByLawyers News and Updates

Offers to settle – QLD

by

The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (QLD) were amended from 23 June 2023 concerning the costs implications of rejected offers to settle made by both plaintiffs and defendants.

The Uniform Civil Procedure (Offers to Settle) Amendment Rule 2023 amends r 360 of the of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 as to offers made by a plaintiff, and r 361 as to offers made by a defendant. It also introduces a new r 361A, which deals specifically with the implications of a plaintiff’s claim being dismissed after the plaintiff rejects a costs offer made by a defendant. There are also transitional provisions for offers already on foot before the amendments.

Offers to settle are relevant to the Court’s exercise of discretion concerning costs at the conclusion of any proceedings. The ordinary rule about costs is that they follow the event: r 681. Costs are awarded to the successful party, usually assessed on the standard basis, unless the rules or orders state otherwise: rr 702-704.

If an offer is made by one party and rejected by the other party, and the ultimate outcome of the case ends up being less favourable to the rejecting party than what was offered, the rules provide that the court can award indemnity costs against the rejecting party from the date of the offer. The amendments to the rules clarify when and how this applies.

The commentary on offers to settle has been amended, for both Acting for the plaintiff and Acting for the defendant, in all By Lawyers QLD Litigation guides:

 

Overriding purpose – Litigation – QLD

by

New case added to Queensland litigation guides

All six of the By Lawyers Queensland litigation guides have been updated to provide a link to a recent case on the importance of the ‘Overriding purpose’ provision of the UCPR and the costs sanctions that might apply where it is breached.

The ‘Overriding purpose’

Rule 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) provides that the overriding purpose of the rules is to provide for the expeditious resolution of the real issues in civil proceedings at a minimum of expense. That requires the courts to have the objective of avoiding undue delay, expense and technicality.

Under Rule 5 all parties to proceedings impliedly undertake to conduct their case in an expeditious way. Where they breach this undertaking, the court may dismiss the proceedings or apply costs sanctions. Francis v MSF Sugar Limited [2020] QSC 16 is a stark example of the court doing so.

Costs sanctions

In making indemnity costs orders in favour of the plaintiff in this case, the court noted:

[23] The defendant has conducted itself in this court quite unreasonably – failing to disclose directly relevant documents until the eve of the trial and pleading matters that were false,
according to its own records, and which it could not prove by admissible evidence. This unreasonable conduct has caused the plaintiff to incur unnecessary costs, including costs
thrown away by yesterday’s adjournment and today’s application and short adjournment. It also likely delayed the determination of the plaintiff’s claim and prevented the matter
resolving on an agreed basis without the need for a trial.

Publication updates

The commentary in each of the By Lawyers Queensland litigation guides already highlights the importance of the Overriding purpose provisions. This useful new case illustrates the court’s approach to compliance with Rule 5 and the possible sanctions that will be applied. it has been added to each of the Acting for the Plaintiff and Acting for the Defendant guides in the By Lawyers Supreme Court, District Court and Magistrates Court publications.

 

Service of documents outside Australia – QLD

by

The rules in Queensland courts relating to service of documents outside Australia have been amended.

The Uniform Civil Procedure (Service Outside Australia) Amendment Rule 2019 (Qld) has inserted a new Chapter 4, Part 7, Division 1 into the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The new Division 1 of Part 7 consists of two subdivisions, dealing with the Supreme Court and the District and Magistrates courts respectively.

The amendments are to incorporate the harmonised rules for service of documents outside Australia originating from the Council of Chief Justices’ Rules Harmonisation Committee. The amendments are minimal, relating mainly to terminology and consistency between jurisdictions.

The rules provide for the service of documents outside Australia, not including New Zealand, which is already covered by the provisions of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth).

The commentaries in the following By Lawyers litigation guides have been amended accordingly:

Electronic filing in the Magistrates Court – QLD

by

The By Lawyers Magistrates Court QLD commentaries have been updated to reflect the recent changes which introduce electronic filing in the Magistrates Court, as a result of amendments to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 by the Uniform Civil Procedure and Other Legislation Amendment and Repeal Regulation (No. 1) 2018 and the subsequent repeal of 49 Practice Directions by Practice Direction No. 4 of 2018.

New Division 4, Part 1, Chapter 22 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 now sets out the rules for electronic filing. For court users to access eLodgement, it is necessary to contact CITEC Confirm to obtain a login.

The following documents are approved by the Principal Register for electronic filing in the Magistrates Court where the proceedings were commenced by a claim that was electronically filed:

  • Claim (Form 2)
  • Application (Form 9)
  • Statement of Claim (Form 16)
  • Request for default judgement (Form 25)
  • Default judgement (Form 26)
  • Affidavit (Form 46)
  • Enforcement Hearing Summons (Form 70)

By Lawyers Guides provide practitioners and support staff with up to date information to help make the practice of law easier.

Connect with us