Matthew Doyle appeared for the applicant, instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth.
The proceedings arose out of costs orders made following the substantive decision in BUMA Australia Pty Ltd v Queensland Power Company Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 338 on 28 April 2026. The respondents sought a declaration that leave to appeal those costs orders was not required under s 64 of the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), or alternatively that leave to appeal be granted.
The principal issues were whether the notice of appeal was properly characterised as an appeal “only in relation to costs” within the meaning of s 64(1) such that leave to appeal was required, and if so, whether the discretion to grant leave should be exercised.
The Court held that, notwithstanding references to the substantive appeal, the appeal was properly characterised as being confined to costs and therefore required leave. In considering whether to grant leave, the Court applied established principles governing appeals from discretionary costs decisions including the requirement to show an arguable error of a kind described in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499. The Court was satisfied that the proposed grounds were arguable and raised questions concerning the exercise of discretion in a significant commercial context.
Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted, the parties were to be heard further as to the costs of the leave application.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
