Legal Research
Cases
JKL Limited v STU

JKL Limited v STU

Case [2019] QCATA 150 21 October 2019

Type to search within this case.

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

JKL Limited v STU & Ors [2019] QCATA 150

PARTIES:

JKL LIMITED

(appellant)

v

STU

(first respondent)

JKL (QLD) PTY LTD

(second respondent)

GHI

(third respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL446-19

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters/Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

21 October 2019

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

DECISION OF:

Member Roney QC

ORDERS:

1.   The Appellant shall pay the First Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal including the application for costs disposed of in these reasons on the standard basis on the District Court Scale applicable to the amount recovered here, as agreed or, failing agreement, to be assessed.

2.   The First Respondent’s costs will be assessed as follows:

(a)   The First Respondent will deliver to the Appellant itemised claim for costs referenced to the relevant items contained in the Scale; and

(b)   If within 14 days of that delivery, the parties have not agreed to an amount for costs, the costs shall be assessed by a Legal Costs’ Assessor to be agreed by the parties, or failing agreement, by a person appointed by this Tribunal. For the purposes of that nomination, the parties shall have liberty to apply to nominate a person whom that party submits ought be appointed.

3.   The Appellant will pay the First Respondent's costs (as agreed or assessed) within 14 days of such agreement or assessment.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – appeals – procedure – costs – whether interests of justice require an order for costs – costs in appeals

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 100, s 102
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), r 86

Cairns Regional Council & Ors v Carey [2012] QCATA 150
Cooke v Plauen Holdings Pty Limited [2001] FMCA 91
Escobar v Rainbow Printing Pty Limited (No. 3) [2002] FMCA 160
Grasso & Anor v CMG Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] QCATA 326
Johanson v Michael Blackledge Meats (2001) 163 FLR 58
McEwen v Barker Builders Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 49
Medical Board of Australia v Wong [2017] QCA 42
Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412
Ricchetti v Landbuilt Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 111
State of Queensland & Anor v Bell [2016] QCATA 176
Tamawood Limited & Anor v Paans [2005] 2 Qd R 101; [2005] QCA 111
Williams v Body Corporate for Circle on Cavill CTS 39918 [2013] QCATA 39
Whitlock v Bunnings, DP and DF [2009] QADT 14

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

DP O’Gorman SC, with RE Reid, instructed by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

Respondent:

R Perry QC, with J Merrell, instructed by Aitken Legal Solicitors

APPEARANCES:

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

In its decision of 14 March 2018, this Appeal Tribunal dismissed an appeal by the Appellant against a decision of Member Ann Fitzpatrick handed down on 6 December 2016…

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.

Continue reading JKL Limited v STU

Details

AGLC: JKL Limited v STU [2019] QCATA 150
Case: [2019] QCATA 150
Decision Date: 21 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of JKL Limited versus STU, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was called upon to adjudicate a dispute involving the Appellant, JKL Limited, and the First Respondent, STU. The central issue before the tribunal was whether the interests of justice required an order for costs in the context of an appeal against QCAT’s decision. This appeal arose from a previous decision made by QCAT, where JKL Limited had sought relief from certain administrative actions taken by STU. The tribunal was tasked with determining the appropriate allocation of costs in the appeal process, particularly focusing on whether JKL Limited should bear the costs of STU's legal proceedings.

The legal issues before the tribunal encompassed the principles guiding the imposition of costs in appeals to QCAT, specifically whether the tribunal had the authority to order costs under its statutory powers and the considerations that should inform such a decision. The tribunal considered the statutory framework within which it operated, including relevant sections of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, as well as established legal precedents. It examined the nature of the appeal, the outcome of the proceedings, and the conduct of the parties to determine if an order for costs was warranted.

In its decision, the tribunal concluded that the interests of justice did indeed necessitate an order for costs in favour of STU. The tribunal found that JKL Limited's appeal was largely unsuccessful and that the outcome did not justify the costs incurred by STU in defending the appeal. The tribunal emphasised the importance of ensuring that appeals to QCAT are not pursued frivolously and that parties should consider the potential consequences, including financial repercussions, before initiating such proceedings. Accordingly, the tribunal ordered that JKL Limited would bear the costs of the appeal as per the outlined schedule.

The tribunal further specified the process for determining the exact amount of costs to be paid by JKL Limited, including the provision for an itemised claim and the potential for assessment by a Legal Costs’ Assessor. This detailed approach aimed to ensure transparency and fairness in the cost allocation process, while also providing a clear framework for the parties to follow. Ultimately, the tribunal's decision underscored the importance of cost management in appeals to QCAT, reflecting a balanced consideration of the interests of justice and the need to deter unfounded litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Appellant shall pay the First Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal including the application for costs disposed of in these reasons on the standard basis on the District Court Scale applicable to the amount recovered here, as agreed or, failing agreement, to be assessed.

2. The First Respondent’s costs will be assessed as follows:

(a) The First Respondent will deliver to the Appellant itemised claim for costs referenced to the relevant items contained in the Scale; and

(b) If within 14 days of that delivery, the parties have not agreed to an amount for costs, the costs shall be assessed by a Legal Costs’ Assessor to be agreed by the parties, or failing agreement, by a person appointed by this Tribunal. For the purposes of that nomination, the parties shall have liberty to apply to nominate a person whom that party submits ought be appointed.

3. The Appellant will pay the First Respondent's costs (as agreed or assessed) within 14 days of such agreement or assessment.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

JKL Limited v STU [2019] QCATA 150

Most Recent Citation

Watego v State of Queensland (costs) [2023] QCAT 292

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

Watego v State of Queensland (costs)
[2023] QCAT 292 Para 8

…In another case where there was a successful complainant, JKL Limited v STU & Ors [2019] QCATA 150, Member Roney QC reviewed the case law and concluded that in an appropriate case, the fact that the claim was a human rights claim which was successful was a factor tending towards an order for costs.[3] That, togethe…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 14 of 14 shown

Medical Board of Australia v Wong
[2017] QCA 42 Para 14

…inforced that approach and the necessity to show unreasonableness as a foundation for the making of such orders. In Medical Board of Australia v Wong [2017] QCA 42, Philip McMurdo JA, with whom the other members of the Court (Morrison and Mullins JJ) agreed, set aside costs orders made on an indemnity basis in a…
State of Queensland & Anor v Bell
[2016] QCATA 176 Para 12

…The Appellant submits that in the decision of this Appeal Tribunal in State of Queensland & Anor v Bell [2016] QCATA 176 that those observations by Justice Keane in Tamawood could not be construed as requiring an unsuccessful party to be the subject of an adverse costs order as though the UCPR applied. That is undo…
Williams v Body Corporate for Circle on Cavill CTS 39918
[2013] QCATA 39 Para 12

…In Williams v Body Corporate for Circle on Cavill CTS 39918 [2013] QCATA 39, Member Barlow QC found as follows: [16] As I said in paragraph [16] of my principal reasons, there were essentially 4 real issues raised in the appeal. Ms Williams succeeded on 2 of those issues and the body corporate succeeded on the oth…
Cairns Regional Council v Carey
[2012] QCATA 150

…009 (Qld), s 100, s 102 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), r 86 Cairns Regional Council & Ors v Carey [2012] QCATA 150 Cooke v Plauen Holdings Pty Limited [2001] FMCA 91 Escobar v Rainbow Printing Pty Limited (No. 3) [2002] FMCA 160 Grasso & Anor v CMG Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd (No 2)…
Ricchetti v Lanbuilt Pty Ltd
[2012] QCATA 111 Para 27

…Reliance was also made to the decision of the Appeal Tribunal in Ricchetti v Landbuilt Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 111 at [26], citing Grasso & Anor v CMG Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] QCATA 326 to the effect that if an Appellant fails, the Respondent has had to face the additional burden and expense of the a…
Grasso & Anor v CMG Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2011] QCATA 326 Para 27

…sion of the Appeal Tribunal in Ricchetti v Landbuilt Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 111 at [26], citing Grasso & Anor v CMG Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] QCATA 326 to the effect that if an Appellant fails, the Respondent has had to face the additional burden and expense of the appeal, and litigation in which he…
McEwen v Barker Builders Pty Ltd
[2010] QCATA 49 Para 9

…Later, in McEwen v Barker Builders Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 49, President Justice Wilson further said in an Appeal heard on the papers: [13] As to costs, the starting point in this Tribunal is that each party must bear its own: QCAT Act, s 100. The statutory presumption may be displaced if the Tribunal considers it in…
Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2)
[2010] QCAT 412 Para 8

…In Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412, the then President Justice Wilson was considering the costs question where the proceeding had been commenced when a different statutory costs regime applied, but concluded under the QCAT Act. He said: [21] The respondent rel…
Tamawood Ltd v Paans
[2005] QCA 111 Para 8

…applied, but concluded under the QCAT Act. He said: [21] The respondent relies on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Tamawood Ltd & Anor v Paans [2005] QCA 111], a case decided under the costs provision of the now repealed Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003 (CCT Act). Although those provisions are not…
Escobar v Rainbow Printing Pty Ltd (No. 3)
[2002] FMCA 160 Para 29

…n v Michael Blackledge Meats (2001) 163 FLR 58, Cooke v Plauen Holdings Pty Limited [2001] FMCA 91 and Escobar v Rainbow Printing Pty Limited (No. 3) [2002] FMCA 160. In Whitlock v Bunnings, DP and DF [2009] QADT 14, the then President of the Anti-discrimination Tribunal, Mr Savage SC said, in this context: The ri…
Cooke v Plauen Holdings
[2001] FMCA 91 Para 29

…of damages being swallowed up by the costs of litigation; Johanson v Michael Blackledge Meats (2001) 163 FLR 58, Cooke v Plauen Holdings Pty Limited [2001] FMCA 91 and Escobar v Rainbow Printing Pty Limited (No. 3) [2002] FMCA 160. In Whitlock v Bunnings, DP and DF [2009] QADT 14, the then President of the Anti-…
Johanson v Michael Blackledge Meats
[2001] FMCA 6 Para 29

…ur of the successful applicant, so as to avoid an award of damages being swallowed up by the costs of litigation; Johanson v Michael Blackledge Meats (2001) 163 FLR 58, Cooke v Plauen Holdings Pty Limited [2001] FMCA 91 and Escobar v Rainbow Printing Pty Limited (No. 3) [2002] FMCA 160. In Whitlock v Bunnings, DP an…
Hill-Douglas v Area Square Pty Ltd
[2012] QCATA 068 Para 4

…on an indemnity basis.[5] [5] Lyons v Dreamstarter Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 071 Justice Alan Wilson, President, [24]; Hill-Douglas v Area Square Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 068; Richetti and Ors v Lanbuilt [2012] QCATA 111.…
Lyons v Dreamstarter Pty Ltd
[2012] QCATA 071 Para 4

…icant all reasonable costs incurred in the proceeding after the offer was made, i.e. costs on an indemnity basis.[5] [5] Lyons v Dreamstarter Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 071 Justice Alan Wilson, President, [24]; Hill-Douglas v Area Square Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 068; Richetti and Ors v Lanbuilt [2012] QCATA 111.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
100 2 mentions (from Para 5)
Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 8)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (QLD)
86 1 mention

CITATION:	JKL Limited v STU & Ors [2019] QCATA 150
PARTIES:	JKL LIMITED (appellant)
v
STU (first respondent) JKL (QLD) PTY LTD (second respondent) GHI (third respondent)
APPLICATION NO:	APL446-19
MATTER TYPE:	Anti-discrimination matters/Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	21 October 2019
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
DECISION OF:	Member Roney QC
ORDERS:	1. The Appellant shall pay the First Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal including the application for costs disposed of in these reasons on the standard basis on the District Court Scale applicable to the amount recovered here, as agreed or, failing agreement, to be assessed. 2. The First Respondent’s costs will be assessed as follows: (a) The First Respondent will deliver to the Appellant itemised claim for costs referenced to the relevant items contained in the Scale; and (b) If within 14 days of that delivery, the parties have not agreed to an amount for costs, the costs shall be assessed by a Legal Costs’ Assessor to be agreed by the parties, or failing agreement, by a person appointed by this Tribunal. For the purposes of that nomination, the parties shall have liberty to apply to nominate a person whom that party submits ought be appointed. 3. The Appellant will pay the First Respondent's costs (as agreed or assessed) within 14 days of such agreement or assessment.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – appeals – procedure – costs – whether interests of justice require an order for costs – costs in appeals Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 100, s 102 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), r 86 Cairns Regional Council & Ors v Carey [2012] QCATA 150 Cooke v Plauen Holdings Pty Limited [2001] FMCA 91 Escobar v Rainbow Printing Pty Limited (No. 3) [2002] FMCA 160 Grasso & Anor v CMG Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] QCATA 326 Johanson v Michael Blackledge Meats (2001) 163 FLR 58 McEwen v Barker Builders Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 49 Medical Board of Australia v Wong [2017] QCA 42 Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412 Ricchetti v Landbuilt Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 111 State of Queensland & Anor v Bell [2016] QCATA 176 Tamawood Limited & Anor v Paans [2005] 2 Qd R 101; [2005] QCA 111 Williams v Body Corporate for Circle on Cavill CTS 39918 [2013] QCATA 39 Whitlock v Bunnings, DP and DF [2009] QADT 14
REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	DP O’Gorman SC, with RE Reid, instructed by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
Respondent:	R Perry QC, with J Merrell, instructed by Aitken Legal Solicitors
APPEARANCES:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).