Helu v Yuan (No 2)

This case, Helu v Yuan (No 2), was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeal Division. The matter involved a dispute between Paul Helu and Hongwen Yuan, which originated in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). Mr Helu was substantially successful in his appeal, and both parties sought costs. Mr Yuan made an offer more favourable than the final decision of the Appeal Tribunal, which was made after the appeal hearing but before the final decision. The court was tasked with determining whether costs should be awarded and whether there should be a reduction in costs based on the offer made by Mr Yuan.

The court examined three offers made by Mr Yuan to Mr Helu during the proceedings. The first offer, dated 7 July 2020, was not relevant to the costs of the appeal as it was made during the proceeding below. The second offer, dated 30 September 2021, was not more favourable than the final decision of the Appeal Tribunal, and therefore it was also not relevant. The third offer, dated 11 April 2022, was more favourable than the final decision of the Appeal Tribunal. The offer was made after the appeal hearing but before the final decision. The court considered Section 105 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) and Rule 86 of the QCAT Rules in its determination.

The court found that the third offer was indeed an offer within the scope of Rule 86, it was not accepted by Mr Helu within the time the offer was open, and the decision of the Appeal Tribunal was not more favourable than the third offer. The court applied Rule 86(2), which provides that the tribunal may award to the offeror all reasonable costs incurred by the offeror in conducting the proceeding after the offer was made. However, the court noted that the making of an offer by a respondent which is more favourable to an applicant than the final result is a relevant consideration in determining costs, but it is not the only or indeed the most important consideration.

In conclusion, the court ordered that Hongwen Yuan must pay to Paul Helu 80% of Paul Helu's costs of the Appeal to be agreed or failing agreement to be assessed on the standard basis on the Magistrates Court Scale, schedule 2, part 3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, as if the appeal had proceeded in that Court. This decision acknowledges the importance of offers made during proceedings and their impact on costs but also recognises that other factors may be taken into account in determining the final costs order.