Carlson v QBT

David Carlson, Peter Zak and Ian Boniface seek a mandamus order compelling the Queensland Building Tribunal to hear and determine their application for compensation pursuant to s.88 of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991. The application arises out of a dispute between the applicants and Johannes Maria Strik and Desley Strik, the second respondents, as to the applicants' entitlement to a share of the profits of a joint venture partnership between the parties. The applicants contend that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear their application for compensation under s.88 of the Act even though it has no jurisdiction to hear the merits of the joint venture dispute. The first respondents, the Queensland Building Tribunal and its Registrar and President, contend that they have no jurisdiction to hear the application. The applicants seek costs against the first respondents.

The court found that s.88 of the Act applies to any proceeding brought before the Tribunal, not merely those proceedings which fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The court found that the applicants' proceeding was brought vexatiously or oppressively and that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine the application for compensation. The court found that the first respondents were mistaken in their conclusion that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the application and that it was open to the court to make a costs order against them. However, the court found that there was no conduct on the part of any of the first respondents which would attract such an order.

The court made a mandamus order compelling the Registrar of the Tribunal to accept the applicants' application and to hear and determine the application for compensation.