Holley v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

CITATION: Holley v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2015] QCAT 424

PARTIES:	Gary John Holley (Applicant)
v
Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR034-13

MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Dr Cullen, Member

DELIVERED ON: 26 October 2015

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    Gary John Holley, t/as Applied Building Approvals is ordered to pay the Queensland Building and Construction Commission’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings in OCR034-13, on the standard basis on the District Court Scale.

2. The QBCC is directed to file two copies in the Tribunal and give to Mr Holley one copy, of a detailed claim for its costs of and incidental to these proceedings on the District Court Scale, together with a solicitor’s affidavit verifying the claim, within 28-days of the date of this Order.

3.    Mr Holley is directed to file and serve any submissions in response within 28 days thereafter. The amount of costs to be fixed will then be determined on the papers by the Tribunal.

CATCHWORDS:

Costs in the Tribunal – Reprimand of private building certifier – unmeritorious review – circumstances mandate award in favour of regulator in the interests of justice.

Building Act 1975 (Qld), s 204,
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 32, s 100, s 102, s 107

Kay v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCAT 421
Chandra v QBSA [2009] QCCTB 181 (19 August 2009)

APPEARANCES:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 20 May 2015, the Tribunal decided that the Queensland Building and Construction Commission had proper grounds for the taking of disciplinary action against Mr Gary John Holley, a private building certifier. Following a hearing where both Mr Holley and the QBCC were legally represented, the Tribunal determined that My Holley’s conduct in failing to classify 8 Ryena Street as a multi-unit dwelling was unsatisfactory, and imposed a penalty of a reprimand in accordance with s 204(4)(a) of the Building Act.

2. The QBCC now seeks that Mr Holley pay its costs of the disciplinary proceedings on the standard basis, to be assessed by the District Court Scale.

3. In order to afford both parties, but particularly Mr Holley, procedural fairness, the Tribunal issued directions following the disciplinary proceedings in relation to the QBCC’s application for costs. Those directions required that the QBCC file and serve any written submissions in support of its application by 3 June 2015, and provided Mr Holley the opportunity to reply by 17 June 2015.

4. As has been noted in 18 June 2015 correspondence sent to the Tribunal by Mr Holley’s solicitors, neither party complied with these directions. The QBCC’s submissions in relation to costs were not received by the Tribunal until 31 July 2015.

5. The 18 June 2015 letter from Mr Holley’s solicitors complains that these procedural factors afford a basis upon…