In this episode of P.I. Case Note, accident legal partner Michelle Wright examines the Queensland Supreme Court’s costs decision in Wallace v Caesarstone Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] QSC 250, which awards indemnity costs for unreasonable litigation conduct when defendants breach court orders and procedural rules for 18 months. The case follows Episode 50’s primary judgment where the Court dispensed with the defendants’ signatures on a request for trial date after they failed to obtain any expert evidence on liability or quantum in almost two years—with this costs judgment punishing the defendants’ attempt to blame the plaintiff for their own neglect by ordering them to pay Mr Wallace’s application costs on an indemnity basis rather than the standard party-party basis.
The Court’s scathing analysis reveals when indemnity costs for unreasonable litigation conduct will be awarded under Rules 681 and 702 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The defendants argued they should pay no costs because Mr Wallace also delivered a late expert report and they achieved partial success in obtaining leave to reply and having the matter placed on the supervised case list. However, the Court expressed disappointment at having to revisit the late report issue—noting the expert had authored a report disclosed by the defendants themselves in August 2024, Mr Wallace then obtained an updated report in May 2025, and in the following three months the defendants took no steps beyond identifying an expert they hadn’t even briefed. Critically, the defendants never offered to sign the request for trial date on condition they could deliver a reply report or that the matter be supervised to trial, and Mr Wallace had not opposed those orders when made. The Court found Mr Wallace had been successful in his application while the defendants “achieved no success on any contentious issues.” Applying the principle that indemnity costs require “some evidence of unreasonable conduct” constituting “a relevant delinquency” that “sufficiently departed from the standards expected by this Court,” the Court found the defendants’ 18 months of neglect of Registrar orders and UCPR obligations, followed by last-minute scrambling to blame the plaintiff, clearly warranted the exceptional remedy of indemnity costs.
Listen for Michelle Wright’s detailed analysis of this important costs decision on indemnity costs for unreasonable litigation conduct and the severe financial consequences of procedural non-compliance. If you’re facing opponents who breach court orders and procedural rules in your personal injury claim, the experienced team at accident legal understands how to seek indemnity costs for unreasonable litigation conduct when defendants engage in neglect and blame-shifting. As Queensland’s trusted personal injury lawyers, we know that courts will punish parties who fail to acknowledge their neglect, refuse to consent to appropriate orders, and instead attempt to lay blame at the feet of compliant plaintiffs. Contact us for a free consultation on (07) 3740 0200, we’ll hold defendants accountable for unreasonable conduct by seeking indemnity costs that exceed standard party-party recovery and provide real financial consequences for procedural delinquency.
