Budge v JMK Building Pty Ltd (No. 2) - [2018] QCAT 199

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Budge & Anor v JMK Building Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2018] QCAT 199

PARTIES:

DAVID BUDGE

(first applicant)

CHRISTINE BUDGE
(second applicant)

v

JMK BUILDING PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

BDL201-16

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

3 July 2018

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:

The respondent pay the applicants’ costs of $3,019.25 within 7 days of the date hereof.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – RECOVERY OF COSTS – ENTITLEMENT – where applicants self-represented – where applicants claimed for time taken to attend interlocutory and final hearing – where applicants claimed legal expenses without particularising charges – where applicants commenced two proceedings in the Tribunal subsequently amalgamated into one – whether the respondent responsible for additional filing fee – where postage charges claimed – where expert witness charged fees

Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403

Rare Nominees Pty Ltd v E-Coastal Developments Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2017] QDC 250

REPRESENTATION:

First applicant:

Self-represented

Second applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

No appearance

APPEARANCES:

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

The hearing in this matter took place over 2 days in September 2017. The applicants were self-represented and the respondent had legal representation.
The final orders made were that the respondent pay the applicants the sum of $7,900 and the parties file submissions as to costs.
The applicants have filed submissions on costs but there are no submissions from the respondent.
The applicants seek the following costs:
Attendances by the first applicant at interlocutory hearings by telephone and the hearing in person over 2 days - $2,800. Attendances by the first applicant at interlocutory hearings and the hearing over 2 days - $1,400.
Filing fees - $631.40.
Postage costs - $179.05.
Legal fees - $3,090.25.
Attendance by the second applicant on QBCC inspector - $600.
Expert witness expense - $1,800.
The High Court explained in Cachia v Hanes:[1]
The “costs” provided for in the Rules do not include time spent by a litigant who is not a lawyer in preparing and conducting his case. They are confined to money paid or liabilities incurred for professional legal services. It is only in that sense that the Rules speak of “costs”…[2]
[C]osts must be understood to be an award by way of partial indemnity for professional legal costs incurred in the conduct of litigation. They were never intended to be comprehensive compensation for any loss suffered by a litigant.[3]
[1][1994] HCA 14; (1994) 179 CLR 403.
[2]Ibid [6].
[3]Ibid [11].
Accordingly, the applicants cannot recover for their time preparing the matter or participating in interlocutory stages or attending at the hearing. Nor additionally here, the second applicant attending on a QBCC representative.
The applicants paid a filing fee of $315.70 in the within matter BDL201-16 on

3 August 2016…

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 Budge v JMK Building Pty Ltd (No. 2) 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: [2018] QCAT 199
Decision Date: 3 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Budge v JMK Building Pty Ltd (No. 2) involved a dispute between Budge, a self-represented party, and JMK Building Pty Ltd, a respondent represented by legal counsel. The case revolved around the recovery of costs incurred during civil proceedings in a state court. Budge sought compensation for time spent attending interlocutory and final hearings, legal expenses without detailed charges, and additional filing fees and postage charges due to procedural missteps. The case had a complex procedural history, beginning with two separate proceedings in the Tribunal that were later amalgamated into one.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the respondent was responsible for additional filing fees incurred by the applicants due to procedural errors, the entitlement to costs for time spent attending hearings, and the appropriateness of claiming legal expenses without detailed particularisation. The court had to assess whether the applicants' claims were reasonable and justified under the circumstances and whether the respondent's conduct warranted any additional costs.

The court found that the applicants were entitled to costs for time spent attending hearings but denied the claim for legal expenses without detailed particularisation. It ruled that the respondent was not responsible for the additional filing fees incurred by the applicants due to their procedural errors. Additionally, the court allowed the applicants to claim postage charges. After considering all the factors, the court determined that the applicants were entitled to $3,019.25 in costs, which the respondent was ordered to pay within seven days of the decision.

The court ordered that JMK Building Pty Ltd pay the applicants' costs of $3,019.25 within seven days of the date of the decision. This outcome reflected the court's consideration of the procedural history, the nature of the claims, and the legal principles applicable to the recovery of costs in civil proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent pay the applicants’ costs of $3,019.25 within 7 days of the date hereof.

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.

CITATION:	Budge & Anor v JMK Building Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2018] QCAT 199
PARTIES:	DAVID BUDGE (first applicant) CHRISTINE BUDGE (second applicant)
v
JMK BUILDING PTY LTD (respondent)
APPLICATION NO:	BDL201-16
MATTER TYPE:	Building matters
DELIVERED ON:	3 July 2018
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Howe
ORDERS:	The respondent pay the applicants’ costs of $3,019.25 within 7 days of the date hereof.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – RECOVERY OF COSTS – ENTITLEMENT – where applicants self-represented – where applicants claimed for time taken to attend interlocutory and final hearing – where applicants claimed legal expenses without particularising charges – where applicants commenced two proceedings in the Tribunal subsequently amalgamated into one – whether the respondent responsible for additional filing fee – where postage charges claimed – where expert witness charged fees Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403 Rare Nominees Pty Ltd v E-Coastal Developments Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2017] QDC 250
REPRESENTATION:
First applicant:	Self-represented
Second applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	No appearance
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).