Kljaic v Queensland Building Services Authority

[2011] QCAT 87

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. The application should be dismissed.