LRC v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General

[2018] QCAT 171

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

LRC v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2018] QCAT 171

PARTIES:

LRC
(applicant)

v

DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

CML235-17

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

13 June 2018

HEARING DATE:

4 June 2018

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Cranwell

ORDERS:

Each party to the proceeding must bear the party’s own costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where application for costs made in administrative review proceedings – whether complexity is such that it is in the interests of justice to award costs

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

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

A S McDougall, instructed by Guest Lawyers

Respondent:

I McCowie, Department of Justice and Attorney-General

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 4 June 2018, I set aside the decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General and substituted a new decision that there is not an exceptional case. I also made orders that the publication of the name of the applicant was prohibited.

2. The applicant has sought a costs order in her favour.

3. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘the QCAT Act’) deals with issues relating to costs in s 100 and s 102.

4. Section 100 of the QCAT Act sets out the starting point in relation to costs, which is that each party to a proceeding must bear the party’s own costs for the proceeding.

5. Section 102 of the QCAT Act provides that the Tribunal award costs against a party if the ‘interests of justice’ require it to make the order. Subsection (3) sets out a number of matters to which the Tribunal may have regard:

   (a) whether a party to a proceeding is acting in a way that unnecessarily disadvantages another party to the proceeding, including as mentioned in section 48(1)(a) to (g);

   (b) the nature and complexity of the dispute the subject of the proceeding;

   (c) the relative strengths of the claims made by each of the parties to the proceeding;

   (d) for a proceeding for the review of a reviewable decision—

   (i) whether the applicant was afforded natural justice by the decision-maker for the decision; and

   (ii) whether the applicant genuinely attempted to enable and help the decision-maker to make the decision on the merits;

   (e) the financial circumstances of the parties to the proceeding;

   (f) anything else the tribunal considers relevant.

6. In the present case, the applicant relies on the complexity of the proceeding as the basis of her application for costs.

7. I do not accept that the complexity of the proceeding warrants an order for costs. The evidence placed before the Tribunal by the applicant, and upon which she was successful in having the decision under review set aside, was all filed by the applicant herself prior to her obtaining legal representation. Without seeking to diminish the assistance provided by her legal representatives at the hearing, the complexity of the case could hardly be said to be outside the normal run of blue card matters, and the evidence and submissions were concluded in half a day.

8. In these circumstances, I see no reason to depart from the usual position, which is that each party to the proceeding must bear the party’s own costs.