Campbell v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (No 2)

This matter involved an application by Ms Campbell for an order for costs against the Queensland Building and Construction Commission. The dispute arose from proceedings before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) where Ms Campbell sought a review of a decision made by the Commission. The central legal issues were the correct approach to an application for costs under sections 100 and 102 of the QCAT Act, and whether the interests of justice required an order for costs in Ms Campbell’s favour.

The court considered the proper approach to an application for costs, focusing on the language of sections 100 and 102 of the QCAT Act. Section 100 states that each party must bear their own costs unless otherwise provided by the Act or an enabling Act, while section 102 allows the tribunal to order costs if the interests of justice require it. The court examined previous cases, particularly Marzini v Health Ombudsman (No 4) and Cowen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission, where it was held that the discretion under section 102 should not be constrained by a presumption against awarding costs. The court rejected the notion that the circumstances must point "compellingly" to a costs award, as previously suggested by President Alan Wilson J in Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2). Instead, the court held that the test remains whether the interests of justice require an order for costs.

After considering the relevant factors, including the nature and complexity of the dispute, the relative strengths of the claims, and the financial circumstances of the parties, the court concluded that the interests of justice did not require an order for costs in Ms Campbell’s favour. The court held that the application for costs should be dismissed.

The final order of the court was that Ms Campbell's application for costs against the Queensland Building and Construction Commission was dismissed.