Gedoun Constructions Pty Ltd v Agius

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Gedoun Constructions Pty Ltd v Agius [2019] QCAT 129

PARTIES:

GEDOUN CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD
(applicant)

v

MARK ELLIOT AGIUS

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL308-18

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

16 May 2019

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Brown

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES – DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS – GENERAL MATTERS- DOCUMENTS IN POSSESSION OF NON-PARTY – where application for miscellaneous matter seeking order for the production of documents from non-parties – where application made prior to filing of evidence and compulsory conference – whether documents relevant.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 62, s 63;
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 242, r 245

Gogolka and Anor v Queensland Building Services Authority [2012] QCAT 308;
Naskam Security Services Pty Ltd v Adarm Security Pty Ltd [2000] QDC 441;
Smith v. O’Leary & Anor [2001] QDC 197;

Uthmann v Ipswich City Council [1998] 1 Qd R 435

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The parties entered into a contract for the construction of a house by Gedoun Constructions Pty Ltd (‘Gedoun’) for Mr Agius. Gedoun has commenced proceedings seeking recovery of monies it says are due and owing by Mr Agius. Mr Agius says that the building works did not reach practical completion and that Gedoun is not entitled to the monies claimed. Mr Agius has filed a counter-application claiming liquidated damages and damages for defective building work.

2. On 21 February 2019 Mr Agius filed two applications for miscellaneous matters seeking orders for the production of documents:

   (a)An application for the production of documents by the Queensland Police Service (‘the QPS application’); and

   (b)An application for the production of documents by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘the QBCC application’).

3. On 12 April 2019 I refused both applications. Following are the reasons for my decision.

4. It is appropriate to make a number of observations about the applications:

   (a)Both applications seek orders for the production of documents pursuant to s 62(3) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), however both applications also purport to rely upon the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld);

   (b)Both applications state the reasons for seeking the production of documents as being ‘[t]hese documents are essential for me and my QCAT case – BDL308-18 as advised by my solicitor’;

   (c)The QPS application seeks:

   (i)      Details of any interview/meeting with any employees, agents or contractors in the employ of or engaged by Gedoun for the purposes of police complaint number … and particularly:

   A.     Communications of any sort with Mr Joe Gedoun; and

   B.     Communications of any sort with any employees,  agents and contractors in the employ of or engaged by (a stated firm of…