Golding v Lusping Pty Ltd No 3

In Golding v Lusping Pty Ltd No 3, the appeal centred around the issue of costs in civil proceedings. The appellant, Golding, was partly successful in their appeal against Lusping Pty Ltd, a company legally represented in the case. The dispute arose from the refusal of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) to award costs to either party despite Golding's partial success. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the appellant should receive an order for costs in relation to the filing fees, and if it was just to make an order for costs in favour of the legally represented respondent.

The court examined the statutory framework under which costs may be awarded, particularly section 102 of the QCAT Act, which requires a demonstration that it is in the interests of justice to do so. Neither party presented a compelling argument for such a demonstration. The respondent did not quantify its costs or provide an assessment on the standard or indemnity basis, nor did it argue that it was not possible for the Appeal Tribunal to fix costs. Consequently, the court held that neither party had shown that it was in the interests of justice to award costs to them.

Given the lack of a demonstration that it was just to award costs, the court determined that each party should bear its own costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself. This decision was made pursuant to section 100 of the QCAT Act. The court concluded that neither party had met the threshold required for a costs order under the statutory provisions considered.

In accordance with the court's findings, it was ordered that each party must bear its own costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal. This outcome ensures that the financial burden of the proceedings is borne by the parties themselves, as neither was able to satisfy the conditions necessary for a costs order.