Browne v Osterman

Case [2025] QCATA 25

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Browne v Osterman [2025] QCATA 25
PARTIES: MATTHEW BROWNE

(applicant\appellant)

v
SOREN JOGN OSTERMAN

(respondent)

REBECCA OLSZAK OSTERMAN

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL292-23

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL302-19

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

18 March 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Aughterson
ORDERS:

1.   Leave to appeal granted.

2.   The appeal is upheld.

3.   The matter is remitted to the Tribunal at first instance to be determined according to law.
CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where appeal against costs order – where leave to appeal required –whether leave should be given – whether error of law by tribunal – whether appeal tribunal should make order for costs or remit to tribunal at first instance

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 77

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 6, s 7, s 100, s 102, s 142

Burnell v Jarvis [2024] QCAT 126

Fick v Groves (No 2) [2010] QSC 182

Gedoun Constructions Pty Ltd v Agius [2024] QCATA 43

Harding v Raymond [2024] QCAT 407

Health Ombudsman v du Toit [2024] QCA 235

Holman v Campbell [2024] QCA 176

Lyons v Dreamstarter Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 142

Lyons v Dreamstarter Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 71

Partington & Anor v Urquhart (No 4) [2019] QCATA 96

Pritchard & Anor v Saaroq Pty Ltd t/as Stroud Homes Wide Bay [2020] QCAT 135
Tamawood Ltd v Paans [2005] Qd R 101
Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Crocker [2018] QCATA 194
Rainbow Builders Pty Ltd v The State of Queensland through the Department of Housing and Public Works (No 2) [2016] QCAT 497

Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. This is an appeal from a decision by the Tribunal at first instance that each party bear their own costs of the proceeding. The substantive hearing involved a building dispute, in which the applicant was successful and the respondents were ordered to pay the applicant the sum of $189,782.47.

  2. In the past, there have been conflicting decisions as to the proper approach to determining applications for costs in relation to matters before the Tribunal. That issue was settled by the 2024 decision of the Court of Appeal in Health Ombudsman v du Toit[1]. The decision the subject of the present appeal was delivered earlier, on 17 August 2023.[2] As with many other decisions of the Tribunal, it placed reliance on the decision in Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2),[3] in relation to which decision the Court of Appeal in Health Ombudsman v du Toit[4] expressed ‘a number of difficulties’.

Continue reading Browne v Osterman

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Browne v Osterman [2025] QCATA 25
Case
[2025] QCATA 25
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Browne v Osterman, the appellant, Browne, sought an appeal against a costs order made by the respondent, Osterman. The dispute originated in a proceeding before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), where Browne had unsuccessfully appealed a decision. The matter was brought before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, which is the court of appeal for AAT decisions. The central issue before the court was whether leave to appeal the costs order should be granted, and if so, whether the appeal tribunal had erred in making the order.

The court examined the criteria for granting leave to appeal, focusing on whether there was an error of law in the tribunal's decision. The tribunal had ordered Browne to pay costs to Osterman following an unsuccessful appeal, and Browne argued that the tribunal had made an error in its application of the law. The court considered whether the tribunal's decision constituted a significant error of law warranting an appeal and whether the matter should be remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration. The court found that the tribunal's reasoning was flawed and that there was indeed an error of law.

Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal and upheld the appeal. The matter was remitted to the tribunal at first instance to be determined according to law. This decision underscores the importance of the tribunal's correct application of the law when making costs orders in administrative appeals.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal granted.

2. The appeal is upheld.

3. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal at first instance to be determined according to law.

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.