Fuge v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

In the case of Fuge v Queensland Building and Construction Commission, Paul Joseph Fuge, the applicant, sought to be categorised as a permitted individual under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991. Fuge’s initial application to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission was unsuccessful, and he subsequently applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a review of the decision. On 9 April 2014, the Tribunal set aside the Commission’s decision and categorised Fuge as a permitted individual. Fuge then applied for an order that the Commission pay his costs of the review application fixed at $23,122. The Commission opposed the application for costs.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal could award costs against the Commission under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 and whether, in the interests of justice, it should do so. The court considered the statutory provisions governing costs and the relevant considerations under section 102 of the QCAT Act. The court also considered whether the Commission had acted in a way that was disadvantageous to Fuge, the nature and complexity of the dispute, the relative strengths of the claims made by the parties, whether Fuge had genuinely attempted to help the Commission make the decision, and whether there were any other relevant factors.

The court found that, while the Tribunal had the discretion to award costs under section 102 of the QCAT Act, the statutory mandate that parties must bear their own costs was strong. The court also found that there was no conduct on the part of the Commission that would justify, in the interests of justice, an order for costs against it. The Commission had a dual function in administering the Act, to protect the public interest and the interests of building contractors, and it must not be reticent in discharging its obligations for fear of adverse costs orders against it unless there was some specific conduct that would overcome the strong contra-indication against costs orders in section 100 of the QCAT Act. The court was not satisfied that this was the case here.

The court dismissed Fuge’s application for costs, and no order was made as to costs.