Area Square Pty Ltd v Hill-Douglas

[2012] QCAT 154

CITATION: Area Square Pty Ltd v Hill-Douglas [2012] QCAT 154

PARTIES:	Area Square Pty Ltd (Applicant)
v
Sholto Hill-Douglas Louise Hill-Douglas (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER: BD017-08

MATTER TYPE: Building matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Richard Oliver, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 30 March 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application for miscellaneous matters filed by Mr and Mrs Hill-Douglas on 15 February 2010 (for orders under s 216 of the QCAT Act, and other orders) is dismissed.

2.    The application by Area Square Pty Ltd for costs is dismissed.

3.    The application by Mr and Mrs Hill-Douglas for costs is also dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Practice –whether a witness made a false and misleading statement – whether a preference for the evidence of one witness over another constitutes a finding of false and misleading evidence in the face of conflicting evidence

Costs – where costs are to be considered under the provisions of the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003 – where limited issues proceeded to hearing for determination after a compulsory conference – whether party entitled to indemnity costs as a result of offers to settle – where both parties partially successful in a difficult and complex proceeding – whether interest of justice require each party bear its own costs

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 6, 7, 100, 216, 245, 246, 271
Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003, ss 70, 71, 138, 142

Rainbow v Nelson [2010] QCAT 388
Tamawood Ltd v Paans [2005] 2 Qd R 105

Smith v NSW Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 256
Colgate-Palm Olive Co v Cussen Pty Ltd (1992) 118 ALR 248
Shelbrook Homes Pty Ltd v Russell (No 2) [2011] QCAT 279

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This building dispute arises out of the construction of a house by Area Square for Mr and Mrs Hill-Douglas at Toowong.  The work proceeded and in October 2007 Area Square issued an invoice for $44,575.33 – on its face, the final invoice for practical completion.  It was not paid and as a consequence Area Square began proceedings in QCAT’s predecessor, the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal (CCT), in January 2008.

2. The parties exchanged pleadings and the matter was eventually set down for a hearing in QCAT shortly after the new Tribunal commenced operations on 1 December 2009.  On the hearing date, 7 December 2009, an adjournment was sought but the parties then agreed to attempt to resolve the case, and a compulsory conference was held before a QCAT Member.

3. Following that conference consent orders were made by the Member on 8 December 2009.  In summary the parties agreed that Area Square’s claims entitled it to a payment of $46,898.62, and Mr and Mrs Hill-Douglas’s claims entitled them to $7,053.58.  Some of the issues in dispute were not, however resolved and…