Ahmet v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Ahmet v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor [2024] QCAT 198

PARTIES:

JESSICA AHMET

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(first respondent)

CRAIG LOW

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR048-20

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

8 May 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Matthews

ORDERS:

1.     The application for costs filed by the applicant on 21 June 2022 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – costs – whether the correct approach to costs in the tribunal under sections 100 and 102 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld) is that these sections merge so that the true overall test is whether the interests of justice require an order for costs.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – costs – where an applicant for an interlocutory strike out application for a review of a decision by a state agency was unsuccessful in the tribunal – where the applicant applies for the first respondent to pay costs of the interlocutory proceedings – whether a costs order should be made.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld), s 47, s 100, s 102.

 Martin v Fasham Johnson Pty Ltd [2007] VSC 54
Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412
Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Vale [2017]
QCATA 110
Valuers Board of Queensland v Murphy [2022] QCAT 295
Body Corporate for Padstow Place CTS 46532 & Anor v AJHJ Property Nominee Pty Ltd [2016] QCAT 481

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Applicant:	Plastiras Lawyers
First Respondent:	Norton Rose Fulbright Australia

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The applicant has made an application for costs orders following an interlocutory application (‘summary dismissal application’) filed by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘QBCC’) on 26 March 2021. 

2. Pursuant to section 43(2)(b)(ii) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) both the applicant and first respondent were granted leave by the Tribunal and both were legally represented in the proceedings, namely the applicant’s application to review the review decision of the QBCC[1] filed at the Tribunal on 7 February 2020.

   [1]Pursuant to sections 86(1)(h), 86E and 87 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act1991 (Qld).

3. Therefore, what is the proper approach and basis for the award of costs by the Tribunal in these circumstances.

4. In these circumstances section 100 and section 102 of the QCAT Act apply, and not section 77(3)(h) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (‘QBCC Act’) which the applicant submits is also applicable. That premise is incorrect.

5. In order for section 77(3)(h) of the QBCC Act to apply pertaining to determination of costs orders, as submitted on behalf of the applicant, it must be a building matter.

6. The interlocutory application…