Boyle v Queensland Building Services Authority - [2010] QCAT 665

CITATION:	Boyle v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 665
PARTIES:	MR & MRS HOWARD & INDRA BOYLE
V
QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY
APPLICATION NUMBER:	GAR022-09
MATTER TYPE:	Building Matter
HEARING DATE:	Decision on the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Mr Paul Favell
DELIVERED ON:	24 December 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	The Tribunal orders that the claim for costs is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	Costs – Building matter – Whether in the interests of justice to award costs in favour of the successful party Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 ss 100, 102 Tamawood Ltd & Anor v Paans [2005] QCA 111 considered Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island CTS 17653 (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412 applied
APPEARANCES AND REPRESENTATION:	Decision on the papers

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction and Claims

The Applicants sought a review of decisions made by the Queensland Building Services Authority (“the QBSA”) on 4 November 2009 and 16 June 2010 respectively to:

(i)disallow, in part, the Applicants' claim for compensation for incomplete works under the insurance scheme ("the decision about the non-completion claim"); and
(ii)disallow a further claim for compensation made by the Applicants regarding accommodation and the construction of retaining walls ("the decision about the accommodation claim and the retaining wall claim").

By an order made by the tribunal with the consent of the parties on 1 November 2010, the substantive application was resolved in the following terms:

(i)The decision about the non-completion claim is set aside and the matter is returned to the QBSA to approve a claim for incomplete works in the amount of $158,982.60; and
(ii)The decision about the accommodation claim and the retaining wall claim is confirmed.

The Applicants have applied for a costs order in their favour on an indemnity basis in the amount of $21,452.74.
The QBSA seeks an order that each party bear their own costs or, in the alternative, there is no order as to costs.

Material Facts

The Applicants made a claim for compensation under the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme administered by the QBSA.
The Applicants’ claims under the insurance scheme can be characterised as follows:

(i)A claim for incomplete residential construction work;
(ii)A claim for alternative accommodation, removal or storage costs; and
(iii)A claim for the construction of retaining walls.

In respect of the non-completion claim, the Applicants originally sought compensation in the amount of $186,022.60 under the insurance scheme. The day before the hearing, the Applicants altered their position regarding how their claim should be quantified or calculated. The Applicants submitted as follows:

“As the BSA’s maximum liability is $200,000 as specified in part 4 of the Policy, the Applicants claim this threshold limit, plus costs”.

In respect of the accommodation claim, the Applicants originally sought compensation in the amount of $42,780.00. The day before the hearing the Applicants submitted that the maximum amount payable by the Authority in respect of the accommodation claim was the amount of $5,000 under the insurance policy. During the hearing the Applicants consented…

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 Boyle v Queensland Building Services Authority

Details

AGLC: Boyle v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 665
Case: [2010] QCAT 665
Decision Date: 24 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Boyle v Queensland Building Services Authority, the dispute centred on a claim for costs following a building matter. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether it was in the interests of justice to award costs to the successful party, who was the respondent in the case. The applicant, Boyle, sought an order for costs against the Queensland Building Services Authority, arguing that the costs should be awarded to him due to the nature of the proceedings and the conduct of the Authority.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was appropriate, in the interests of justice, to grant the applicant's request for costs. The Tribunal needed to weigh the merits of the applicant's case against the overall fairness and justice of awarding costs, considering the conduct of both parties and the circumstances surrounding the dispute. The Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant's success was sufficient justification for the award of costs, or whether other factors, such as the conduct of the parties and the nature of the dispute, warranted a different outcome.

After carefully considering the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Tribunal concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to award costs to the applicant. The Tribunal noted that while the applicant was successful in the proceedings, various factors, including the conduct of both parties and the nature of the dispute, did not justify an award of costs. The Tribunal found that the applicant's claim for costs did not meet the threshold required for such an award, and therefore, the claim for costs was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision reflects a balanced approach, considering both the procedural aspects of the case and the broader principles of fairness and justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that the claim for costs is 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.