Brading v Suskova - [2017] QCAT 389

CITATION:

Brading v Suskova [2017] QCAT 389

PARTIES:	Ralph Charles Brading (Applicant)
v
Natasha Suskova (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCL051-17

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Brown

DELIVERED ON:

3 November 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The Tribunal record is corrected to reflect that the applicant is Ralph Charles Brading.

2. The application for a non publication order is refused.

3. Ralph Charles Brading must pay to Natasha Suskova costs in the amount of ~~$304.43~~ $376.63 within fourteen (14) days.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – where costs sought by respondent – where the dispute was not a complex dispute under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) schedule 3 – where Tribunal does not have jurisdiction – where the applicant body corporate manager does not have authorisation to commence proceedings – where fixed costs granted to the respondent

Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), s 227(1)(a), Schedule 3
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66(2), s 100, s 102(1),
s 102(3)(a), s 102(3)(b), s 102(3)(c), s 102(3)(e), s 102(3)(f), s 107(1)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), Schedule 3, Part 3

Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403
Chiropractic Board of Australia v Jamieson [2013] QSC 77
Dp v Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory [2006] ACTSC 61
Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412
Reihana v QCAT Client Services Manager & Ors [2017] QCA 117

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 12 September 2017 I ordered the dismissal of the Application to resolve a complex dispute. My reasons were given orally at the conclusion of the hearing. I made directions for the parties to file and exchange submissions on costs. The issue of costs now falls for determination.
Before addressing the submissions by the parties it is appropriate to place into some context the circumstances that have led the parties to the position in which they find themselves.
An application to resolve a complex dispute was filed on 20 July 2017. The applicant is identified in the application as Ralph Charles Brading. Mr Brading is noted in the application to be the ‘chairperson of the body corporate committee’.
Mr Brading and Ms Suskova are each lot owners in Sunny Waters CTS 22181, a scheme comprising 3 lots.
The application sought orders that a draft management statement for the scheme be prepared. The application refers to this course of action having been ‘agreed on at the last Annual General Meeting’.[1] Ms Suskova was named as the sole respondent. The application is worded in an opaque and confusing way. Suffice it to say, the application suggested Ms Suskova had acted in a manner calculated to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brading v Suskova and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] QCAT 389
Decision Date: 3 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brading v Suskova involved a dispute between Ralph Charles Brading and Natasha Suskova. Brading, a body corporate manager, had commenced proceedings against Suskova regarding a dispute under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld). The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was tasked with determining the issue of costs following the proceedings. The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it had the jurisdiction to grant costs to Suskova, the respondent, given that the dispute was not classified as a complex dispute under the Act. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether Brading, as the body corporate manager, had the necessary authorisation to commence the proceedings in the first place.

The Tribunal found that it did not have the jurisdiction to grant costs to Suskova as the dispute did not fall within the category of complex disputes outlined in the Act's schedule 3. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that Brading did not have the requisite authorisation to initiate the proceedings. Despite these findings, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under the Civil Proceedings in State and Territory Courts (Costs) Regulations 2001 to grant fixed costs to Suskova, considering the circumstances of the case. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to award costs to Suskova given Brading's lack of authorisation and the overall conduct of the proceedings.

In summary, the Tribunal corrected the record to accurately reflect Brading's name, denied the application for a non-publication order, and ordered Brading to pay Suskova costs amounting to $376.63 within fourteen days. This decision underscores the importance of procedural authorisation and the Tribunal's discretionary power in awarding costs, even in the absence of jurisdiction over the substantive matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Tribunal record is corrected to reflect that the applicant is Ralph Charles Brading.

2. The application for a non publication order is refused.

3. Ralph Charles Brading must pay to Natasha Suskova costs in the amount of $304.43 $376.63 within fourteen (14) days.

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.