Haimes v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2025] QCAT 88

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Haimes v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Ors [2025] QCAT 88

PARTIES:

LUKE HAIMES

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(first respondent)

RUSSELL STOCKTON

LISA STOCKTON
(second respondents)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR188-18

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

10 March 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Deane

ORDERS:

1.     The time for compliance by Russell Stockton and Lisa Stockton with order 2 made 2 July 2024 is extended to 4:00pm on 6 August 2024.

2.     The time for compliance by Luke Haimes with order 3(a) made 2 July 2024 is extended to 4:00pm on 5 September 2024.

3.     The Application for miscellaneous matters filed 6 August 2024 is dismissed.

4.     There is no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS –– GENERAL MATTERS – POWER TO AWARD GENERALLY – STATUTORY BASIS GENERALLY – whether the interests of justice require an award of costs – where costs applied for in interests of justice – where unsuccessful application not an unnecessary disadvantage necessitating costs – where complexity of dispute not a determinative factor in awarding costs – where not all costs sought incurred as a result of this proceeding

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld), s 48, s 61, s 100, s 102

Ascot v Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia [2010] QCAT 364

Fuge v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCAT 383
Haimes v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Ors [2024] QCAT 326
Health Ombudsmanv du Toit [2024] QCA 235
Marzini v Health Ombudsman (No 4) [2020] QCAT 365
Queensland Building and Construction Commission v B&L Constructions Qld Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] QCATA 107
Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412

Tamawood Ltd v Paans [2005] 2 Qd R 101

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

Applicant:

CH Matthews, instructed by All Building Law

Second Respondents:

K McAuliffe-Lake, instructed by Aitchison Reid

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Haimes (‘the Contractor’) unsuccessfully applied to set aside the decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘QBCC’) that a domestic building contract had been validly terminated by Russell Stockton and Lisa Stockton (‘the Homeowners’) having the consequence of allowing a claim for non-completion under the Statutory Insurance Scheme (‘SIS’).[1]
[1]Haimes v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Ors [2024] QCAT 326.
By decision made 2 July 2024, I confirmed the QBCC’s decision and set a timetable if a party wished to seek costs and for the question of costs to be determined on the papers.
The Homeowners applied for orders that the Contractor pay their costs.[2] Submissions and evidence have been received.[3] Neither the Homeowners nor the Contractor objected to the other parties’ minor non-compliance with the timeframes in the Decision of 2 July…

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 Haimes 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: [2025] QCAT 88
Decision Date: 10 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Haimes v Queensland Building and Construction Commission involved a dispute between the Homeowners and the Commission, with the Homeowners pursuing several claims that ultimately proved unsuccessful. The Homeowners also failed to disclose certain documents, which likely would have reduced the complexity of the issues in the case. The court had to consider whether the interests of justice required the award of costs to the successful party, the Commission.

In assessing the matter, the court noted the significant costs incurred by all parties, including the Homeowners, due to their unsuccessful claims and non-disclosure of documents. The court concluded that while the Homeowners were ultimately successful in having the decision under review confirmed, many of their arguments were not supported by the evidence. The unsuccessful arguments likely increased the costs for the Commission. The court found that the costs incurred had diminished the benefit of the Homeowners' successful claims, but some of this was due to their own decisions or actions.

The court, after considering the factors, decided not to exercise its broad discretion to award costs against the Commission. The complexity of the dispute was not deemed a decisive factor in the decision. The court found that not all costs sought were incurred as a result of the proceeding. The court dismissed the application for miscellaneous matters and made specific orders regarding compliance times for certain parties.

The final orders included extending the compliance time for certain parties and dismissing the application for miscellaneous matters. Importantly, the court decided not to make an order as to costs, reflecting its conclusion that the interests of justice did not require an award of costs against the Commission.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The time for compliance by Russell Stockton and Lisa Stockton with order 2 made 2 July 2024 is extended to 4:00pm on 6 August 2024.

2. The time for compliance by Luke Haimes with order 3(a) made 2 July 2024 is extended to 4:00pm on 5 September 2024.

3. The Application for miscellaneous matters filed 6 August 2024 is dismissed.

4. There is no order as to costs.

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

As referred to earlier in these reasons, costs were incurred by all parties, including the Homeowners, in relation to the Homeowners pursuit of a number of ultimately unsuccessful claims and their non-disclosure of documents, which likely would have lessened the complexity of some of the issues to be determined. I take this into account in considering the extent to which costs have eroded the benefit obtained.Conclusion On balance, I am not satisfied that the interests of justice require the Tribunal to make an award of costs. While ultimately successful in having the Decision under review confirmed, many of the arguments advanced by the Homeowners, each of which no doubt contributed to the quite significant costs incurred by the Homeowners, were not supported on the evidence before me. It is likely that these unsuccessful arguments would have increased the costs of the Contractor. The evidence of the Homeowners was in some respects deficient, as referred to earlier, which added to some of the complexity. The costs incurred have eroded the benefit of the Homeowners’ overall successful claims, however, at least some of that is due to their own decisions or actions. I am not satisfied that the factors clearly support the award of costs against the Contractor. I decline to exercise my broad discretion to award costs against the Contractor in these circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.