Background
The Court had dismissed the first applicant’s 20 April 2026 interlocutory application in an earlier decision, Frater & Ors v Murphy & Anor [2026] QSC 184. The application raised two issues: whether the Morayfield Property should be sold and whether declarations should be made that purported resolutions were invalid.
After the dismissal, the parties could not agree on costs. The first respondent, the estate administrator, and the third applicant and second respondent sought indemnity costs. The second applicant had not commenced the application, but participated in the hearing and positively supported the relief sought by the first applicant.
The Court’s Holding
Williams J applied the usual rule in r 681 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld): costs are discretionary but ordinarily follow the event. Because the first applicant failed on both substantive issues, she was ordered to pay 95% of the standard-basis costs of the first respondent and of the third applicant and second respondent.
The second applicant’s participation went beyond merely abiding the Court’s decision, so she was ordered to pay the remaining 5% of those costs. The Court rejected indemnity costs: although the first applicant had been wholly unsuccessful, the circumstances did not provide a sufficient or proper basis for that departure from standard costs. Any of the administrator’s costs not recovered under those orders were to be paid from the estate under Burns J’s 15 February 2024 order.
Key Takeaways
- A party who unsuccessfully brings an interlocutory application will ordinarily bear the successful parties’ costs under r 681.
- A non-moving party may receive a proportionate costs order if it actively supports the unsuccessful relief, rather than simply abides the outcome.
- Complete failure on the issues does not itself justify indemnity costs; a proper additional basis is required.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Court’s willingness to allocate costs according to a participant’s practical role in an interlocutory dispute. Limited but affirmative participation justified a 5% liability for the second applicant, while the principal applicant bore the balance.
It also confirms that standard costs remain the default even after an entirely unsuccessful application, absent circumstances warranting indemnity costs.