Isles v State of Queensland (No. 2)

[2021] QCAT 227

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

1. 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).

2. 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).

3. 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.

4. 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.