DSGN Kartell Pty Ltd v Pathmaperuma; DSGN Kartell Pty Ltd v Hennig Bros Construction Pty Ltd; DSGN Kartell Pty Ltd v Craig Russell Stranger t/as ACE Space Design

DSGN Kartell Pty Ltd initiated proceedings against three respondents: Prasanna Anuradha Pathmaperuma, Samarage Hasitha Pathmaperuma, Hennig Bros Construction Pty Ltd, and Craig Russell Stranger trading as ACE Space Design. The applicant subsequently withdrew the proceedings before they were finally determined. The respondents then applied for an order for costs on an indemnity basis. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) which had to determine whether the applicant acted reasonably in bringing the proceedings and whether the dispute was a domestic or commercial building dispute for the purposes of determining QCAT’s power to award costs. The tribunal found that there was no special or unusual feature that would allow costs on an indemnity basis and that the dispute was not a domestic or commercial building dispute. The tribunal awarded costs on a standard basis.

The tribunal considered whether the applicant acted reasonably in bringing the proceedings and found that it had not. The tribunal also considered whether the dispute was a domestic or commercial building dispute for the purposes of determining QCAT’s power to award costs. The tribunal found that the dispute was not a domestic or commercial building dispute as there was no contractual relationship between the applicant and the respondents. Therefore, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute, but it did have power to award costs under the QCAT Act.

The tribunal ordered that DSGN Kartell Pty Ltd pay the costs of the three respondents. The costs were to be agreed upon or, if not agreed, assessed on the standard basis on the District Court scale as if the proceedings had been brought in that court. The orders were made in three separate matters, each with a different respondent.

This case highlights the importance of considering the reasonableness of bringing proceedings and the jurisdiction of the tribunal in awarding costs. It also emphasises the need for parties to carefully consider the nature of the dispute before initiating proceedings.