Fenwick v Queensland Building Services Authority

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read
CITATION: Fenwick v Queensland Building Services Authority (No 2) [2011] QCAT 262
PARTIES: Mr Don Charles Fenwick
v
Queensland Building Services Authority
APPLICATION NUMBER:   QR165-08
MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters
HEARING DATE:     On the papers
HEARD AT:  Brisbane
DECISION OF: Mr Barry Cotterell, Member
DELIVERED ON: 6 June 2011
DELIVERED AT:      Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The Respondent will pay the Applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings from 23 July 2008 to 19 May 2009 on a standard basis on the District Court Scale as agreed or, failing agreement, as assessed.

2.    The Respondent will pay the Applicant's reasonable costs on an indemnity basis of conducting the proceedings on and from 19 May 2009 on the District Court scale as agreed, or, failing agreement, as assessed.

3.    The Applicant's costs will be assessed as follows:

(a) The Applicant will deliver to the Respondent an itemised claim for costs referring to the relevant items contained in the scale; and
(b) If within 14 days of that delivery, the parties have not agreed to an amount for costs, the costs shall be assessed by Hickey & Garrett, Legal Costs Assessors, Level 21, 141 Queen Street Brisbane.

4.    The Respondent will pay the Applicant's costs (as agreed or assessed) within fourteen (14) days of such agreement or assessment by Hickey & Garrett, Legal Costs Assessors, Level 21, 141 Queen Street Brisbane.

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS – application to QCAT for costs of proceedings started in former Commercial and Consumer Tribunal – factors in awarding costs – interests of justice

COSTS – offer to settle – offer rejected – final decision not more favourable to applicant than offer

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 100, 102
Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003, ss 70, 71

Tamawood Limited v Paans[2005] QCA 111 applied

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The application was determined on the papers.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. This is an Application for costs arising from an application to review the Respondent’s decision dated 27 June 2008 to reject the Applicant’s claim for insurance made pursuant to the statutory insurance scheme administered by the Respondent (“the Decision”).

  2. The Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the Decision by virtue of sections 86(1)(h) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (QId) (“the QBSA Act'') and Part 1, Division 3 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QId) (“the QCAT Act'').

  3. On 7 February 2011, the Tribunal decided as follows:

    1.The decision of 27 June 2008 assessing the entitlement of the Applicant in respect of his claim under the statutory insurance scheme as being the sum of $ nil is set aside.

    2.The Applicant is entitled to payment in the sum of $171,212 plus relocation costs of $5,000 and interest of $351.75 making a total of $176,563.75 in respect of his claim under the statutory insurance scheme.

    3.The parties will file in the registry and exchange written submissions in relation to costs within 14 days of the date of this order and…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Fenwick v Queensland Building Services Authority and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2011] QCAT 262
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fenwick v Queensland Building Services Authority involved an application by the applicant for costs incurred during proceedings that began at the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal and were subsequently transferred to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The applicant sought an order for the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings on the basis that the respondent had failed to settle the matter in a manner favourable to the applicant. The legal issues before QCAT were whether the respondent's offer to settle was rejected unfairly and whether the final outcome of the proceedings was not more favourable to the applicant than the offer. QCAT considered the nature of the proceedings, the timing of the offer, and the eventual outcome, and found that the applicant's costs should be awarded on a standard basis for the period up until the offer and on an indemnity basis thereafter. The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs from 23 July 2008 to 19 May 2009 on a standard basis and from 19 May 2009 onwards on an indemnity basis. The court also specified the process for determining the exact amount of costs to be paid, including the requirement for the applicant to deliver an itemised claim for costs and the appointment of an independent assessor should the parties be unable to agree on the amount. The respondent was required to pay the applicant's costs within fourteen days of agreement or assessment by the appointed assessors.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Respondent will pay the Applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings from 23 July 2008 to 19 May 2009 on a standard basis on the District Court Scale as agreed or, failing agreement, as assessed.

2. The Respondent will pay the Applicant's reasonable costs on an indemnity basis of conducting the proceedings on and from 19 May 2009 on the District Court scale as agreed, or, failing agreement, as assessed.

3. The Applicant's costs will be assessed as follows:

(a) The Applicant will deliver to the Respondent an itemised claim for costs referring to the relevant items contained in the scale; and

(b) If within 14 days of that delivery, the parties have not agreed to an amount for costs, the costs shall be assessed by Hickey & Garrett, Legal Costs Assessors, Level 21, 141 Queen Street Brisbane.

4. The Respondent will pay the Applicant's costs (as agreed or assessed) within fourteen (14) days of such agreement or assessment by Hickey & Garrett, Legal Costs Assessors, Level 21, 141 Queen Street Brisbane.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.