Canadian Solar Construction (Australia) Pty Ltd v Re Oakey Pty Ltd

Canadian Solar Construction (Australia) Pty Ltd (the plaintiff) initiated proceedings against Re Oakey Pty Ltd (the defendant) in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The dispute centred on costs, specifically indemnity costs, and the plaintiff sought these costs following the service of a settlement offer by the defendant. The plaintiff argued that the settlement offer was comprehensive enough to allow it to pursue other claims against the defendant, which had its own counterclaims against the plaintiff. The tribunal had to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to costs calculated on an indemnity basis after the day of service of the settlement offer, and if the plaintiff's costs were no less favourable than the offer.

The tribunal considered whether the offer was sufficiently detailed to constitute a comprehensive settlement offer, which would allow the plaintiff to pursue other claims against the defendant. The tribunal also assessed whether the plaintiff's costs were no less favourable than the settlement offer, thereby determining the appropriate basis for cost assessment. Additionally, the tribunal examined whether the defendant should be liable for Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the costs, given the absence of applications or supporting material from the plaintiff. Finally, the tribunal deliberated on the appropriate rate of interest on the costs, with the plaintiff contending for compound interest and the defendant arguing for simple interest, based on the interpretation of section 67P of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991.

The tribunal ruled that the defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding. The detailed letter accompanying the settlement offer was deemed comprehensive enough to allow the plaintiff to pursue additional claims against the defendant. The tribunal also concluded that the plaintiff's costs were no less favourable than the settlement offer, justifying the indemnity basis for cost calculation. The tribunal found that the defendant should bear the GST on the costs, despite the lack of applications or supporting material from the plaintiff. Finally, the tribunal determined that the defendant should pay compound interest on the costs, in line with the interpretation of section 67P of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991.