Boyle & Braiden v Axis Contracting Pty Ltd

Case [2025] QCATA 72

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION: 

BOYLE & BRAIDEN V AXIS CONTRACTING PTY LTD [2025] QCATA 72

PARTIES:

LAUREN BOYLE

(first applicant)

And

JOSHUA BRAIDEN

(second applicant)

V

AXIS CONTRACTING PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPEAL NO:

APL007-25

APPLICATION NO/S:

Q2599-23 (Brisbane)

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARD ON:

16 July 2025

DELIVERED ON:

30 July 2025

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Lember

ORDERS:

1.       Leave to appeal is refused.

2.       The application for leave to appeal or appeal is therefore dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – application for a minor debt dispute – where claim sought costs of time spent in related proceedings pursuant to a contract – where application was dismissed – where respondents sought costs on dismissal – where costs application overlooked - where audio difficulties in hearing - whether adequate reasons given – where leave to appeal refused – costs under sections 47 and 102 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 47, s 100, s 102, s 122, s 143

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld) r 83, r 84

Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552
Ascot v Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia [2010] QCAT 364
Boyle & Anor v Axis Contracting Pty Ltd [2023] QCATA 139
Bucknell v Robins [2008] QCA 214
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1949] 78 CLR 62
Drew v Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 219
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Health Ombudsman v du Toit [2024] QCA 235
Jimenez v Sternlight Investments t/a LJ Hooker Alexandra Hills [2010] QCATA 29
Markan v Bar Association of Queensland [2013] QSC 146
Marzini v Health Ombudsman (No 4) [2020] QCAT 365
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] QSCFC 53
Platinum United II Pty Ltd & Anor v Secured Mortgage Management Ltd (in liq) [2011] QCA 162
Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412
Smart State Vehicle Rental Pty Ltd v Tri Asset Protection Systems Pty Ltd [2013] QCATA 16
Spencer v Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118

Yeo v Brisbane Polo Club Inc [2013] QCAT 261

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicants: 

Self-represented.

Respondent: 

Self-represented by Jackson Richards, director.

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. The applicants, Ms Boyle and Mr Braiden and the respondent, AXIS Contracting Pty Ltd (Axis) have been in a long-standing dispute over the construction by Axis of a dam on the applicants’ land.

  2. In Q00371/22 the applicants had pursued a claim for compensation against Axis for failure to undertake the work with due care and skill and for breach of contract. In Q60887/21 Axis pursued the applicants for payment of its outstanding invoice in the sum of $14,004.70 plus interest and the filing fee.

  3. The applications were heard together and by a decision made 1 November…

Continue reading Boyle & Braiden v Axis Contracting Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Boyle & Braiden v Axis Contracting Pty Ltd [2025] QCATA 72
Case
[2025] QCATA 72
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Boyle & Braiden versus Axis Contracting Pty Ltd, the appeal was lodged by the plaintiffs seeking to challenge the dismissal of their application for costs incurred during related proceedings under a contract. The case was heard and determined by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The plaintiffs, Boyle & Braiden, sought to recover costs associated with their time spent in these proceedings, and their application was dismissed. Subsequently, the respondents, Axis Contracting Pty Ltd, applied for costs in relation to the dismissal of the plaintiffs' application. The plaintiffs argued that their application for costs was overlooked, and they faced audio difficulties during the hearing. The central legal issues before the court were whether the reasons given for dismissing the appeal were adequate and whether the plaintiffs' application for leave to appeal was correctly refused.

The tribunal considered the adequacy of the reasons provided for dismissing the appeal, noting the audio difficulties experienced by the plaintiffs during the hearing. The tribunal also assessed whether the application for leave to appeal was correctly refused under sections 47 and 102 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). After examining the matter, the tribunal found that the reasons provided for dismissing the appeal were adequate. It also concluded that the refusal of leave to appeal was justified, as the appeal did not present a compelling case warranting further consideration. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself.

The tribunal's decision was grounded in the procedural fairness of the reasons given for the dismissal and the appropriateness of the refusal of leave to appeal. The tribunal found that the plaintiffs' concerns regarding audio difficulties did not undermine the fairness of the proceedings, and the reasons provided were sufficient to justify the dismissal of the appeal. The orders made by the tribunal included the refusal of leave to appeal, thereby dismissing the application for leave to appeal or appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is refused.

2. The application for leave to appeal or appeal is therefore dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.