MAGISTRATES COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Roxo v Gamble & Ors [2025] QMC 14	
PARTIES:	Ross Gamble 
(Plaintiff)
v
Ian Gamble
(First Defendant)
&
Ashley Gamble
(Second Defendant)
& 
Gamble Family Trust ABN 43 394 695 105
(Third Defendant)	
FILE NO/S:	M4494/18	
DIVISION:
ORIGINATING COURT:	Civil
Brisbane Magistrates Court 	
MAGISTRATE:
HEARING:
DELIVERED:
CATCHWORDS:

	Pinder 
On the papers
21/05/2025
COSTS – GENERAL RULE AS TO COSTS – STANDARD OR INDEMNITY BASIS 
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 681, r 693
Roxo v Gamble & Ors [2025] QMC 3  
Oshlock v Richmond River Council [1998] 193 CLR 72
Peter Carter Transport Pty Ltd-v-The Swansaway 2 Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 109    

	
Introduction 
[1]	I published reasons for a decision on 12 February 2025 and made orders that the default judgment entered on 18 August 2025 be set aside.
[2]	I directed the parties file written submissions as to cost orders sought, in the event costs could not be agreed.  The reasons for decision found that the Judgment was irregularly entered upon the basis that the Statement of Claim was deficient and non-compliant. 
[3]	The plaintiff and defendants have provided submissions on costs.
[4]	The successful defendants contend for the following orders;
1.	The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs fixed in the sum of $32,977.00.
2.	The plaintiff file and serve the amended Statement of Claim within 28 days of this order.
[5]	The unsuccessful plaintiff contends for the following orders;
1.	That the costs of the application be costs in the cause or in the alternative be reserved to the conclusion of the proceeding.
2.	That the plaintiff file and serve an amended Statement of Claim within 28 days.
Amendment of Statement of Claim
[6]	Interestingly both the plaintiff and defendant’s seek orders effectively giving the plaintiff leave to file an amended statement of claim.
[7]	Leave is not required to amend the Statement of Claim. Before the filing of request for trial date a party may as often as necessary make an amendment of which leave of the Court is not required under the rules.  While both submissions are silent as to the issue it would appear that what the parties seek is more in the nature of directions to advance the proceedings.  The Court has a general power to make directions.
[8]	As it is otherwise uncontroversial it is appropriate to make the directions order sought requiring the plaintiff to file and serve an amended statement of claim within 21 days.
The Ordinary Rule as to Costs
[9]	The defendant’s submissions identify the principles as to the general rule about costs.
[10]	Costs follow the event unless the Court otherwise orders.  It is a long-established principle that costs follow the event, unless there are special circumstances justifying a different order.  The plaintiff’s submissions accept those general propositions.
[11]	The defendants have succeeded on their application (to set aside the default judgement) and following the general rule about costs are entitled to their costs on the application. 
The Parties Submissions – As to Costs
[12]	The presumptive position is the defendants as successful parties are entitled to their costs on the application.
[13]	The plaintiff bears the onus of establishing that there are special circumstances justifying a different order. The plaintiff’s submissions are contained within paragraphs 4 to 10.
[14]	The submissions are both confused and confusing.  The plaintiff in vague terms contends;
•	Although there was a power to stay enforcement of the judgement, no stay was ordered.
•	The plaintiff was entitled to rely on advices given by the registrar in granting the default judgement.
•	The plaintiff at all times acted properly.
[15]	The plaintiff also was critical of submissions in the substantive application by the defendants in respect of the absence of personal service and the plaintiffs lack of standing to bring the proceedings, however as articulated in the reasons delivered 12 February 2025 those considerations in respect of the issue of costs are irrelevant.
[16]	None of the matters advanced in the plaintiff’s submissions fall within the exception to the general rule, as have been to costs or otherwise justify departure from the general rule as have been articulated in a broad range of authorities. The defendants submissions, contained in paragraphs 5 to 13 are equally unhelpful. The plaintiff, bearing the onus to demonstrate that there are special circumstances justifying a different order, has failed to do so.  The defendants have succeeded in their application, costs ought to follow the event and the defendants are entitled to an order that the plaintiff pay the first and second defendants cost of the application.
Basis for Assessment of Defendant’s Costs – Standard or Indemnity Basis
[17]	The defendants seek an order that the plaintiff pay the costs of the application to be assessed on a standard basis.  This is notwithstanding “the submissions in relation to an offer to settle costs” and as to the plaintiffs conduct.  The usual, or presumptive position, is that costs are ordered to be paid on a standard basis.  Clearly, and upon the basis of the defendant’s own submissions, costs ought be ordered on a standard basis.
Assessment of the Defendants Costs 
[18]	The defendants seek that the costs be fixed in the sum of $32,977.00.  The plaintiff’s submissions are silent as to the assessment or fixing of costs.  In the Magistrates Court, the court may order that the costs of proceedings be assessed by a cost assessor - if the Magistrate considers it appropriate because of nature and complexity of the proceedings.  There is a presumption in the favour of a Magistrate fixing costs of a proceedings and “it is only when a case falls into an exceptional category because of its nature and complexity that there might be an order for assessment of costs.”  
[19]	The starting point is that the defendants’ costs ought be fixed. Unusually, the defendants have put on no material seeking to justify or assist in fixing costs in the sum sought of $32,977.00.  The extent of the defendants’ position are simply unsubstantiated submissions.  
[20]	In approaching the fixing of costs, it ought to proceed on the basis that fixing costs should not usually be difficult.  It is not intended to involve the rigour of a costs assessment and can reflect a broad approach.  It is desirable to fix costs and avoid the time, trouble, delay and expense that can result from assessment.  This is especially the case in the Magistrates Court where the amounts involved in claims are necessarily less that in the District or Supreme courts.   
[21]	Magistrates Court Practice Direction 18 of 2010 deals with fixed costs or costs to be assessed.  Paragraph 5 of Practice Direction 18 of 2010 directs for the fixing of costs including “where practicable the estimate should be verified on affidavit particularly in proceedings involving claims exceeding $50,000.”  The defendants have provided no material, in compliance with Practice Direction 18 of 2010 to assist in the fixing of costs.  In those circumstances I direct that the defendants comply with Practice Direction 18 of 2010 (paragraph 5) and file and serve an affidavit verifying and particularising the costs sought.
Disposition
[22]	I order;
1.	The plaintiff pay the first and second defendant’s costs of the application on a standard basis.
2.	The defendant file and serve an affidavit in compliance with Practice Direction 18 of 2010 (paragraph 5) providing particulars and quantifying the costs sought to be fixed.  
3.	The plaintiff is to file and serve an amended statement of claim within 28 days.