Lockhart v Bartholomai & Anor (No. 2)
[2026] QDC 1 · Byrne KC DCJ
This was a costs decision following an earlier judgment in which the plaintiff's personal injury claim, arising from an incident involving a dog, was dismissed. The plaintiff accepted that he should pay the defendants' costs because he lost, but argued these should be on the ordinary (standard) basis. The defendants argued they should be paid on the more generous indemnity basis, because the plaintiff had refused two earlier settlement offers (one of $80,000 and one of $100,000) and ended up recovering nothing. The judge examined when the plaintiff should have realised his case had weakened, looking at the timing of medical reports, and concluded that at the time the offers were open the plaintiff still had a reasonable expectation of doing better than the offers. Because his refusal of the offers was not imprudent, the court refused to order indemnity costs and instead ordered the plaintiff to pay costs on the standard basis.
Incident & injury
Injury allegedly caused by a dog (claim required proof of the dog's relevant propensity); the principal defence relied on the principle in Searle v Wallbank
- Body regions
- Knee / lower leg, Right knee, Right lower leg/ankle (peroneal nerve), Psychiatric (Right)
- Diagnoses
- Minimally displaced lateral tibial plateau fracture (right tibia), Common peroneal nerve injury with partial peroneal nerve palsy / foot drop, Aggravated osteoarthritis right knee, Major Depressive Disorder (single episode, severe without psychosis), Basophobia (fear of falling)
- Incident date
- 8 July 2021
- Location
- Mountain Creek (footpath adjacent to defendants' residential property)
Quick facts
- Date of judgment
- 30 January 2026
- Claim type
- PIPA Public Liability
- Proceeding
- Costs
- Plaintiff outcome
- N/A
- Plaintiff age at injury
- 73
- Occupation
- Retired
- Whole Person Impairment
- 15%
Outcome
Following dismissal of the plaintiff's personal injury (dog) claim, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs on the standard basis. The defendants sought indemnity costs from the date of their PIPA mandatory final offer or UCPR offer, but the court found the plaintiff's refusal of those offers was not imprudent, so no indemnity costs were warranted.
Key issues
Lockhart v Bartholomai & Anor (No. 2) [2026] QDC 1
When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.