Kljaic v Queensland Building Services Authority

CITATION:		Kljaic v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCAT 87
PARTIES:	Mr Mladen Kljaic
v
Queensland Building Services Authority

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAR222-10

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Peta Stilgoe, Member

DELIVERED ON:

17 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

Application for a notice requiring a witness to attend or produce a document or thing is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

Notice to produce – where Authority refused application for permitted individual – where application that layer produce documents – where scope of documents sought very wide – where relevance of documents not established – where issue of cost of producing documents not addressed

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Eaton Lawyers
RESPONDENT:	Forbes Dowling

This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Kljaic has applied for a review of the Authority’s decision to refuse to categorise him as a permitted individual. He was a director of Nigel Readi Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd, now in liquidation.
The Authority applied for a notice to produce to be issued to TVP Law in these terms “in relation to the applicant and the company MKM Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd, any files and all file notes, correspondence sent or received from the Applicant or copies of correspondence sent or received, instructions or notes made of instructions received from the Applicant, advice or notes made in relation to advice given to the Applicant.” The Authority did not file any submissions with the notice.
Section 63(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) provides:
The tribunal may make an order requiring a person who is not a party to a proceeding but who has, or is likely to have, in the person’s possession or control a document or other thing relevant to the proceeding to produce the document or thing.
The terms of the request extend beyond what could possibly be relevant in these proceedings. It is conceivable that Mr Kljaic and/or MKM engaged TVP Law on a number of occasions and for a number of different legal issues. If a notice was issued in the terms requested, all of that information would have to be produced, whether or not it was relevant to these proceedings.
Section 63(4) of the QCAT Act states that, in making an order for production of documents, the tribunal must consider whether it is appropriate to make an order requiring the party to pay the costs of producing the documents. It seems to me that the tribunal cannot comply with its obligation under s 63(4) unless and until it has information about the cost of production and whether the Authority has made any arrangement in relation to those costs.
The application should be dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Kljaic v Queensland Building Services Authority, the court was asked to determine the admissibility of documents sought by the plaintiff in the context of an application for a witness to attend or produce a document. The defendant, Queensland Building Services Authority, had refused the plaintiff's application for a permitted individual to produce certain documents, citing the scope of the request as overly broad and the relevance of the documents as unestablished. Additionally, the defendant highlighted that the plaintiff had not addressed the potential costs associated with producing the documents.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the scope of the documents sought by the plaintiff was sufficiently narrow and whether the relevance of the documents had been adequately demonstrated. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff had appropriately addressed the potential costs involved in producing the documents. These issues were central to determining the validity of the plaintiff's application for a witness to produce documents.

The court found that the scope of the documents sought by the plaintiff was excessively broad, encompassing a wide array of materials without a clear indication of their relevance to the case. The court also noted that the plaintiff had not established the necessity or importance of the documents in question. Additionally, the plaintiff had not adequately addressed the potential financial burden of producing the documents, which is an essential consideration in such applications. As a result, the court ruled that the plaintiff's application for a notice requiring a witness to produce documents was not justified, and thus, the application was refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established