Eagle Rock Pty Ltd v Project Tiling Management Pty Ltd

[2012] QCAT 306

CITATION: Eagle Rock (Qld) Pty Ltd v Project Tiling Management Pty Ltd [2012] QCAT 306

PARTIES:	Eagle Rock (Qld) Pty Ltd
v
Project Tiling Management Pty Ltd

APPLICATION NUMBER:   BDL129-12

MATTER TYPE: Building matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 12 June 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:      1.    Project Tiling Management Pty Ltd is granted leave to be legally represented in these proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

Leave for legal representation

Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009, ss 3, 4, 43

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Eagle Rock (Qld) Pty Ltd has filed an application against Project Tiling Management Pty Ltd claiming $47,647.60 for the cost of rectifying defective tiling work carried out by Project Tiling.

2. Project Tiling has applied for leave to be legally represented in the proceedings.

3. Section 43(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 states the main purpose of the section is to have parties represent themselves unless the interest of justice require otherwise.

4. In deciding whether to give a party leave to be represented in a proceeding, the tribunal may consider, relevantly[1]:

a)Whether the proceeding is likely to involve complex questions of fact or law.

b)Whether another party is represented in the proceeding.

c)Whether the parties agree to representation.

[1] Section 43(3) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009.

1. Mr Ghanem, director of Project Tiling says that the dispute does involve complex technical and legal issues, including discussion of a previous adjudication.  He further says that Eagle Rock has access to technical and legal expertise in-house which will place it at an advantage in the conduct of the proceedings.  Finally, Mr Ghanem says that he is the sole shareholder and executive director of Project Tiling, working 60 hours per week on his business and he does not have the time or expertise to handle these proceedings.

2. I have examined the contract document and scanned the material submitted to the adjudicator.  I am satisfied that the dispute is of sufficient complexity that legal assistance is warranted.

3. Further, the Act requires that the tribunal deal with matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick[2] and that it is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of persons who use the tribunal[3].  Neither of these objectives will be met by a respondent who is working 60 hours per week unless that person has assistance.  The objectives of the tribunal, and a timely and efficient resolution of the dispute, will best be achieved by allowing Project Tiling Management Pty Ltd leave to be legally represented in these proceedings.

   [2] Section 3(b) QCAT Act.

   [3] Section 4(e) QCAT Act.