Beaumont v McGill - [2010] QCAT 257

CITATION: Beaumont v McGill [2010] QCAT 257

PARTIES: Jason Paul & Patricia Suzanne Beaumont

v
Mr Anthony McGill

APPLICATION NUMBER: BD314-06

MATTER TYPE: Building matters

HEARING DATE: 23 March 2010

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Dr Bridget Cullen Mandikos

DELIVERED ON: 23 March 2010

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: Respondent to pay costs.

CATCHWORDS: Legal Costs, Interlocutory Proceedings, sections 60, 70 and 71 of the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003 (Qld); Tamawood Ltd. & Anor v Paans [2005] QCA 111.

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

Hearing on the papers

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is an application seeking 2 orders for costs, made by the Applicants in the originating proceedings, Jason Paul Beaumont and Patricia Suzanne Beaumont (“the Beaumonts”), as follows:

1Costs in relation to an application made by the Respondent, Anthony McGill (“Mr McGill”) on 5 October 2006, seeking summary dismissal of the Beaumont’s originating application, or in the alternative, an order that the Beaumont’s statement of claim be struck out as failing to disclose a cause of action; and
2Costs in relation to a related application made by the Beaumonts on 6 October 2006 as a consequence of Mr McGill’s 5 October 2006 application, seeking to amend their statement of claim.

These proceedings have endured a long and protracted history, having been commenced in the former Commercial and Consumer Tribunal (“CCT”) in 2006.

The CCT has amalgamated into the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“QCAT”). QCAT now hears and decides all matters previously dealt with by the CCT: section 256 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (“QCAT Act”).

Submissions by the parties on costs

Following direction by QCAT, both parties to these proceedings have filed written submissions relevant to the issue of costs. The Beaumonts filed a compendium of relevant materials with QCAT on 8 February 2010, including submissions, affidavit material, schedules outlining the Beaumont’s costs on a standard basis, and other related materials. These submissions were supplemented on 9 February 2010, with the additional filing of written submissions prepared by Mark Williams, Counsel for the Beaumonts.

Mr McGill has also filed submissions with QCAT, on 8 February 2010, and which include correspondence, a copy of relevant CCT directions, and written submissions.

The necessity of the Beaumont’s 6 October 2006 application

In short, the Beaumonts submit that their 6 October 2006 application to amend their statement of claim needed to be brought urgently, as a consequence of Mr McGill’s having brought his 5 October 2006 application. The Beaumonts assert that had Mr McGill not brought the 5 October 2006 application, they would have been able to address the issue of amendment during the ordinary course of events, where pleadings might be amended on a non-urgent basis prior to the hearing of the matter. Ultimately, and this is of particular importance, Mr McGill’s 5 October 2006 application, asserting that the CCT did not have jurisdiction to hear the Beaumont’s application (with which the CCT disagreed), was unsuccessfully appealed to the District Court.

I think…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Beaumont v McGill

Details

AGLC: Beaumont v McGill [2010] QCAT 257
Case: [2010] QCAT 257
Decision Date: 23 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Beaumont v McGill [2010] QCAT 257 is a Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) case between Jason Paul and Patricia Suzanne Beaumont (the Beaumonts) and Mr Anthony McGill. The Beaumonts filed a building dispute in 2006, which Mr McGill responded to by disputing the tribunal's jurisdiction. The Beaumonts sought costs related to Mr McGill's application and a subsequent application to amend their statement of claim. The court had to decide if the Beaumonts were entitled to costs under sections 60, 70, and 71 of the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003 (Qld) and whether Mr McGill's conduct warranted the award of costs.

The Beaumonts argued that their application to amend their statement of claim was necessary due to Mr McGill's 5 October 2006 application. The tribunal found that Mr McGill's jurisdictional objection was unsustainable from the outset, and his conduct had unnecessarily protracted the proceedings. The tribunal considered factors such as the outcome of the proceeding, the conduct of the parties, and the nature and complexity of the proceeding in determining whether to award costs. The tribunal also noted that Mr McGill was legally represented and that his representatives had made unsupported arguments.

The tribunal concluded that Mr McGill's conduct, through his legal representatives, was designed to avoid engaging with the main issues in dispute and had delayed the proceedings for 18 months. The tribunal found that it was appropriate to award the Beaumonts all the costs they sought, including those related to the 5 October and 6 October 2006 applications and supplementary submissions on costs dated 30 October 2008.

The tribunal ordered Mr McGill to pay the Beaumonts' costs of the 5 October and 6 October 2006 applications, to be assessed on the standard basis using the District Court scale of costs. If Mr McGill did not indicate agreement with the costs or dispute the costs within the specified timeframe, he was to pay the Beaumonts' costs as provided. If Mr McGill disputed the costs, they would be assessed by Hickey & Garrett, Legal Cost Consultants, and Mr McGill would pay the assessed costs within 14 days of receiving the assessment.

Orders