Family provision – costs consequences for not complying with the Practice Direction

Tiirola v Parlato [2015] QDC 3 illustrates the importance of complying with Practice Direction No 8 of 2001 (Qld).

The respondent executors were ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of an application for directions, in circumstances where the draft Directions Order was not signed by them and there was an “unexplained absence … of any attempt by the respondents to comply” with the requirement that, within 14 days of service of the draft Directions Order, the respondent sign the draft or make an alternative proposal in respect of any matters contained in it with which the respondent disagrees.

The published reasons do not refer to the new UCPR r700A, but that rule could also be relevant to a costs argument where there is non-compliance of this kind that necessitates an application for directions.