Brading v Suskova - [2017] QCAT 373

CITATION:

Brading v Suskova [2017] QCAT 373

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 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 circumvent…

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 Brading v Suskova

Details

AGLC: Brading v Suskova [2017] QCAT 373
Case: [2017] QCAT 373
Decision Date: 3 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brading v Suskova involved a dispute between Ralph Charles Brading and Natasha Suskova. The matter was before the Tribunal to determine the costs incurred by the parties. The Tribunal had to decide whether the respondent, Suskova, was entitled to the costs she sought. The case did not involve a complex dispute under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) schedule 3, and the Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction over the matter. The Tribunal also found that the body corporate manager, who initiated the proceedings on behalf of Brading, did not have the necessary authorisation to commence the proceedings. Given these findings, the Tribunal granted fixed costs to Suskova.

The primary legal issue was whether Suskova was entitled to the costs she sought, considering the circumstances of the case. The Tribunal assessed whether the matter was a complex dispute under the Act and whether the body corporate manager had the authorisation to commence the proceedings. Since the matter was not a complex dispute and the body corporate manager lacked the necessary authorisation, the Tribunal determined that it did not have jurisdiction to decide the matter. Consequently, the Tribunal found that Suskova was entitled to the costs she sought, subject to the fixed costs regime. The Tribunal concluded that the body corporate manager’s lack of authorisation did not absolve Brading of his responsibility to pay the costs incurred by Suskova.

In light of these findings, the Tribunal made several orders. Firstly, the Tribunal corrected the record to accurately reflect that the applicant was Ralph Charles Brading. Secondly, the Tribunal refused Suskova’s application for a non-publication order. Finally, the Tribunal ordered that Brading must pay Suskova costs in the amount of $304.43 within fourteen days. The Tribunal’s decision emphasised the importance of proper authorisation for initiating proceedings and the consequences of not having the necessary authorisation, particularly in relation to the allocation of costs.

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 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.