Background
James Boyd Thompson’s claims against Elizabeth (Liza) MacMillan, the sixth defendant in long-running proceedings arising from the termination of his membership of a charitable organisation, were struck out in 2016. Mullins J ordered Thompson to pay MacMillan’s costs on both indemnity and standard bases. This application concerned only the standard-basis costs order.
MacMillan filed a costs statement seeking $99,544.23. Costs assessor Stuart Naylor assessed the amount payable at $92,255.64, including assessment costs and the assessor’s fees. Thompson paid the assessed amount, obtained the assessor’s reasons, and sought a review under r 742 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), advancing numerous objections.
The Court’s Holding
Ryan J refused the review application. A review of a costs assessment is analogous to an appeal: the applicant must show an error of principle, a failure to exercise discretion, or a manifestly wrong result. The court will be particularly reluctant to intervene where the challenge is only to quantum.
The assessor’s reasons, read as a whole, adequately addressed Thompson’s objections and applied orthodox tests of reasonableness, necessity and propriety. The court rejected complaints about the paper-based procedure, alleged inadequate reasons, claimed double recovery, time rounding, invoices, and the costs of assessment. Most grounds merely sought a reassessment of discretionary quantum decisions. The unsupported allegation of assessor bias was described as scandalous and should not have been made.
Key Takeaways
- A r 742 review is not an opportunity to re-assess individual cost items merely because a party disputes the amount allowed.
- Brief reasons may be adequate when read with the assessor’s stated principles and the context of the objections.
- An objector’s degree of success may matter to assessment costs, but it is not the only relevant consideration.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the high threshold for overturning a Queensland costs assessment. Parties challenging an assessment must identify a material legal or discretionary error, rather than present detailed objections to individual amounts.
It also illustrates that extensive, repetitive objections—particularly over small items—may support an assessor’s decision that the party liable for the underlying costs should bear the costs of the assessment.