Coconut v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (No 2)

[2014] QCAT 290

CITATION: Coconut & Ors v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (No 2)  [2014] QCAT 290

PARTIES:	Maryanne Coconut Shayne Francis Blackman Leileen Lola Blackman Robert June Stanley Vera Nau (Applicants)
v
Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR143-13; OCR144-13; OCR145-13; OCR146-13; OCR147-13

MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE: 1 May 2014

HEARD AT: Townsville

DECISION OF: Member JC Carey

DELIVERED ON: 13 June 2014

DELIVERED AT: Townsville

ORDERS MADE: 1. No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS: Costs – Section 100 Queensland Civil and  Administrative Tribunal Act 2009

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANTS: Mr Askin, Roberts Nehmer McKee Lawyers

RESPONDENT: Mr Robinson, Robinson Locke Litigation Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Applicants and the Respondent have made written submissions as to costs in accordance with the Orders made after the hearing of this matter.

2. The Applicants submit that the Tribunal should set aside the usual position in section 100 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (the Act) that each party bear its own costs.

3. The Applicants submit that an order in accordance with section 102 of the Act should be made primarily because the decision maker failed to afford it natural justice when it made the decision in that it failed to consider all of its relevant submissions.

4. The Applicant also submits that the decision maker did nothing more than address the “usual considerations” of section 56AD(8) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991.

5. The Respondent asserts that the authority did not inconvenience the Applicants, that it did not act in a way that disadvantaged the Applicants and it proactively engaged with the Applicants, as it ought to do in review matters of this nature.

6. The Respondent, as the regulatory body charged with construction industry, must oversee and apply the provisions of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991.

7. The fact that the decision was adverse to the Applicants does not mean that natural justice was not afforded.  The Tribunal is satisfied the decision maker had regard to the information put forward on behalf of the Applicants.

8. Having regard to the submissions made by both parties, the Tribunal is not satisfied an order for costs is appropriate. 

9. In those circumstances there is no need to consider the quantum claimed by the Applicants.