Fox v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2024] QCAT 456

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

FOX V QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION [2024] QCAT 456

PARTIES:

RICHARD THOMAS FOX

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR009-24

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

18 October 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Aughterson

ORDERS:

1. The application for costs is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where application for a Builder-Low Rise licence refused – where subsequent reconsideration of the decision and licence granted – where applicant withdrew review application and applied for costs – approach to costs orders in the Tribunal – whether order for costs should be made

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 100, s 102

Atanaskovic v Birketu Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 312
Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow (2019) 269 CLR 333
Brisbane Marine Pilots Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v General Manager of Maritime Safety Queensland,Department of Transport and Main Roads and Ors (costs) [2022] QCAT 225
Cantamessa v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (No 2) [2021] QCAT 213
Fuge v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCAT 383
Lourey v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2012] WASCA 112
Marzini v Health Ombudsman (No 4) [2020] QCAT 365
Medical Board of Australia v Wong [2017] QCA 42
Motor Vehicle Industry Board v Dawson [2006] WASAT 8
Paridis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board [2007] WASCA 97

Porteous v Pharmacy Board of Australia (No 2) [2021] QCAT 390
Pound v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCAT 298
Richards & Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor (No 2) [2019] QCAT 372
Stuart v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2016] QCATA 135
Young v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2022] WASCA 52

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicant has applied for costs in relation to his application to review the initial decision of the respondent (‘the QBCC’) to disallow a licence application for a Builder-Low Rise. Following a reconsideration of that decision and the approval of the licence, the applicant withdrew his review application before the Tribunal and made an application for costs in the sum of $19,031.49, of which $15,375 is for ‘professional fees’.
Sections 100 to 109 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) deal with the issue of costs. Section 100 of the QCAT Act is headed ‘Each party usually bears own costs’ and provides:
Other than as provided under this Act or an enabling Act, each party to a proceeding must bear the party’s own costs for the proceeding.
Section 102 is headed ‘Costs against party in interests of justice’ and provides:
(1) The tribunal may make an order requiring a party to a proceeding to pay all or a stated part of the costs of another party…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Fox v Queensland Building and Construction Commission 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: [2024] QCAT 456
Decision Date: 18 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Fox v Queensland Building and Construction Commission, the applicant, Fox, sought a Builder-Low Rise licence from the Queensland Building and Construction Commission. After an initial refusal, the Commission reconsidered the decision and granted the licence. Fox subsequently withdrew their review application and sought an order for costs. The case was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which had to determine the appropriate approach to costs orders in such circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether an order for costs should be made in favour of Fox. This required the Tribunal to consider the principles of costs in administrative law, particularly in relation to applications that are withdrawn and the circumstances under which costs orders may be appropriate. The Tribunal needed to balance the interests of the applicant in recovering costs against the public interest in ensuring efficient use of administrative resources.

The Tribunal concluded that while Fox had a legitimate interest in seeking costs, the overall circumstances did not warrant a costs order. The Tribunal found that the withdrawal of the review application did not automatically entitle Fox to costs. Instead, the Tribunal considered factors such as the conduct of the parties, the merits of the case, and the public interest in efficient use of resources. Given these factors, the Tribunal determined that an order for costs should not be made.

The Tribunal dismissed Fox's application for costs. The reasoning was based on a balanced assessment of the principles governing costs orders and the specific circumstances of the case. This outcome reflects the Tribunal's approach to ensuring that costs orders are made judiciously and in accordance with the relevant legal principles.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for costs is dismissed.

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.