Coral Homes Qld Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority

In the case of Coral Homes Qld Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority, the applicant sought an order for the respondent to pay the costs incurred in several applications for review which were initially resisted by the respondent but subsequently conceded. The matter was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The central dispute was the entitlement to costs following the resolution of the initial review applications without a final hearing on the merits. The applicant argued that the respondent’s initial resistance to the review applications warranted an order for costs under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 and the Tribunal Rules.

The key legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the prima facie position, as outlined in section 100 of the Act, should be displaced and costs ordered against the respondent under section 102(3). The applicant contended that the respondent's initial resistance to the review applications justified an award of costs, referencing the absence of a final hearing on the merits. The Tribunal had to consider the circumstances surrounding the initial resistance and subsequent concession by the respondent, including whether a Calderbank offer was made and whether the costs incurred were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s application for costs. It reasoned that the respondent’s initial resistance did not automatically entitle the applicant to costs, particularly as the respondent had conceded the review applications without a final hearing on the merits. The Tribunal noted that the absence of a final hearing did not necessarily imply that the respondent's position was without merit or unreasonable. Furthermore, the Tribunal did not find that the circumstances warranted an order for indemnity costs under section 102(3) of the Act.

The Tribunal's final orders were that the application for costs be dismissed, reflecting the Tribunal's view that the respondent's initial resistance did not justify an award of costs to the applicant. The Tribunal did not find the circumstances to warrant an order for indemnity costs.