Chandra v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

CITATION: Chandra v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2016] QCATA 53

PARTIES:	SURESH CHANDRA (Appellant)
v
QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL058-14

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Justice Carmody
Kenneth Barlow QC

DELIVERED ON: 20 April 2016

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

The appellant pay 80% of the respondent’s costs of this appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis at the District Court scale.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION MATTER – BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE – COSTS – where the appellant was partially successful, but substantially unsuccessful in the appeal – what order for costs should be made

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 ss 100, 102

Better Homes Queensland Pty Ltd v O’Reilly [2013] QCATA 122
Grasso & Anor v CMG Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2011] QCATA 326
Herron v Attorney-General for New South Wales (1987) 8 NSWLR 601
Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412
Tamawood Ltd v Paans [2005] QCA 111

Williams v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2016] QCATA 5

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

Carmody J

1. I have read the reasons of Member Barlow QC and agree with the order he proposes.

Member Barlow QC

Introduction

1. On 22 February 2016, this tribunal determined this appeal.  The appellant was partially successful and the tribunal invited the parties to make submissions on costs.  The parties accepted that invitation.  The appellant submits that the respondent should pay his costs of the appeal, or alternatively that there be no order as to costs.  The respondent submits that the appellant should pay its costs of the appeal, together with its costs of an earlier stage of the proceeding.

2. For the reasons set out below, I consider that the appropriate order is that the appellant pay 80% of the respondent’s costs of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis at the District Court scale.

The nature and history of the proceeding

1. The proceeding was a disciplinary matter, in which the respondent had sought and obtained penalties against the appellant for breaches of his obligations as a building certifier.  By order of the tribunal, he was disqualified for life from applying for a building certifier’s licence, he was ordered to pay compensation and he was ordered to pay a penalty of $10,000. 

2. In his appeal, which was commenced on 31 January 2014, the appellant appealed only from the order of disqualification.  However, in an amended application to appeal filed in June 2015 and in his submissions to the appeal tribunal, he also contended that the monetary penalty was excessive, especially in addition to the disqualification, and sought to have it set aside.  Counsel appearing for him at the hearing of the appeal sought leave…