Isles v State of Queensland (No. 2)

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Isles v State of Queensland (No. 2) [2021] QCAT 227

PARTIES:

STEVEN ISLES
(applicant)

v

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

ADL032-19

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

DELIVERED ON:

23 June 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Hughes

ORDERS:

Each party pays their own costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - COSTS – GENERAL MATTERS – POWER TO AWARD GENERALLY – GENERALLY - where interests of justice do not require costs order – where claim lacked merit - where costs provisions construed beneficially to give full effect to objects and purposes of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) – where costs order would cause significant financial detriment

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 6
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 100, s 102

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175

Alexander v State of Queensland & Anor [2016] QCAT 142

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

Cook v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) & Anor [2018] QCAT 216

Creek v Raine & Horne Real Estate Mossman [2011] QCATA 226

Fick v Groves (No 2) [2010] QSC 182

Harrison v Terra Search Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QCAT 128

McKinnon v State of Queensland and Anor (No. 2) [2012] QCAT 566

Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No. 2) [2010] QCAT 412

Virgtel Ltd & Anor v Zabusky & Ors [2008] QSC 213

Williams v Body Corporate for Circle of Cavill CTS 29918 [2013] QCATA 39

Yeo v Brisbane Polo Club Inc. [2013] QCAT 261

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

Costs in the Tribunal do not follow the event. I am not satisfied the interests of justice[1] overcome the usual position that each party pays its own costs.[2]
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 102.
[2]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 100; Ascot v Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia [2010] QCAT 364, [9] (Judge Kingham, Deputy President); Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No. 2) [2010] QCAT 412, [29] (Wilson J).
Unmeritorious claims should not be encouraged due to the unnecessary cost to the parties and the whole community.[3] Much material was unnecessary, adding complexity. But these factors do not outweigh the reticence to order costs in the Tribunal’s human rights jurisdiction.[4] In this jurisdiction,[5] parties are often not legally represented, and the adequacy of the contentions are to be considered in a reasonable, realistic and pragmatic way.[6]
[3]Creek v Raine & Horne Real Estate Mossman [2011] QCATA 226, [13], citing with approval Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175, 217.
[4]McKinnon v State of Queensland and Anor (No. 2) [2012] QCAT 566, [7]; Yeo v Brisbane Polo Club Inc. [2013] QCAT 261, [14] - [16]; Alexander v State of Queensland & Anor [2016] QCAT 142, [54].
[5]Unlike Williams v Body Corporate for Circle of Cavill CTS 29918 [2013] QCATA 39.
[6]Virgtel Ltd & Anor v Zabusky & Ors [2008] QSC 213, [15] (Daubney J).
The costs provisions are therefore construed beneficially to give full effect to the objects and purposes of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).[7] A person seeking relief for an alleged breach of human rights should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to have their case heard and determined according to law.[8] Mr Isles appeared and gave evidence.[9] His evidence was genuine and honest.
[7]Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 6; Harrison v Terra Search Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QCAT 128, [9].
[8]Harrison v Terra Search Ltd & Ors [2014] QCAT 128, [8].
[9]Unlike Cook v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) & Anor [2018] QCAT 216.
Mr Isles’ financial circumstances[10] are also relevant.[11] The evidence is a costs order would cause Mr Isles significant financial detriment.[12] He has an 18% whole of person impairment and is unlikely to return to meaningful work.[13] Mr Isles has been through enough. The appropriate Order is that each party pays their own costs.
[10]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 102(3)(e).
[11]Unlike Fick v Groves (No 2) [2010] QSC 182.
[12]Applicant submission regarding costs dated 26 May 2021, [18] – [20].
[13]Report of Dr Bruce Low, Orthopaedic Surgeon dated 24 March 2021.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Isles v State of Queensland (No. 2) involved the applicant, Steven Isles, bringing an anti-discrimination claim against the State of Queensland. The case was determined by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) on the papers, without a formal hearing. The applicant sought relief under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) for alleged discrimination experienced in the workplace. The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was entitled to an order for costs under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

The Tribunal, in its decision, noted that costs in the Tribunal generally do not follow the event, meaning that a party is not automatically entitled to an order for costs against the other party. The Tribunal considered the principle that unmeritorious claims should not be encouraged due to the unnecessary cost to the parties and the community. The Tribunal also considered the nature of the human rights jurisdiction in which parties are often not legally represented, and the adequacy of the contentions should be considered pragmatically. However, the Tribunal found that the interests of justice did not require an order for costs in this case. The Tribunal took into account the applicant's financial circumstances and concluded that an order for costs would cause significant financial detriment to the applicant. Given these considerations, the Tribunal determined that the appropriate order was for each party to bear their own costs.

The final orders of the Tribunal were that each party was to bear their own costs, reflecting the balance between the principles of justice and the applicant's financial circumstances. This decision highlights the careful consideration required in determining costs in human rights cases, where the underlying purpose is to provide a reasonable opportunity for individuals to have their claims heard and determined according to law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Isles v State of Queensland (No. 2) [2021] QCAT 227
PARTIES:	STEVEN ISLES (applicant)
v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	ADL032-19
MATTER TYPE:	Anti-discrimination matters
DELIVERED ON:	23 June 2021
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Hughes
ORDERS:	Each party pays their own costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - COSTS – GENERAL MATTERS – POWER TO AWARD GENERALLY – GENERALLY - where interests of justice do not require costs order – where claim lacked merit - where costs provisions construed beneficially to give full effect to objects and purposes of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) – where costs order would cause significant financial detriment Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 6 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 100, s 102 *Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University* (2009) 239 CLR 175 *Alexander v State of Queensland & Anor* [2016] QCAT 142 *Ascot v Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia* [2010] QCAT 364 *Cook v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) & Anor* [2018] QCAT 216 *Creek v Raine & Horne Real Estate Mossman* [2011] QCATA 226 *Fick v Groves (No 2)* [2010] QSC 182 *Harrison v Terra Search Pty Ltd & Ors* [2014] QCAT 128 *McKinnon v State of Queensland and Anor (No. 2)* [2012] QCAT 566 *Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No. 2)* [2010] QCAT 412 *Virgtel Ltd & Anor v Zabusky & Ors* [2008] QSC 213 *Williams v Body Corporate for Circle of Cavill CTS 29918* [2013] QCATA 39 *Yeo v Brisbane Polo Club Inc.* [2013] QCAT 261
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).