| CITATION: | Lyons v Dreamstarter Pty Ltd & Anor [2016] QCATA 43 |
| PARTIES: | Andrew Lyons (Applicant) |
| V | |
| Dreamstarter Pty Ltd (in liquidation) t/a Protec Builders |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL086-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | 17 February 2016 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Justice DG Thomas, President |
| DELIVERED ON: | 10 June 2016 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application of the QBCC is dismissed 2. The QBCC pay Mr Lyons reasonable costs assessed on an indemnity basis 3. The QBCC is to make any submissions in relation to methodology for agreement or assessment of costs by: 4:00pm on 1 July 2016 4. Mr Lyons is to make any submissions in reply by: 4:00pm on 22 July 2016 5. Unless either party requires an oral hearing the orders as to costs will be determined on the papers after 22 July 2016 |
| CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – where the second respondent brought an application to clarify the constitution of the Appeal Tribunal due to discussions that took place at a Directions Hearing – where the second respondent alleged apprehended bias if the original Member were to hear the appeals – where the Appeal Tribunal was not yet constituted – whether the application should be dismissed PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – POWER TO ORDER – where application made pre-emptively – whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) SS 77 Battenberg v Union Club [2007] NSWSC 265 Lyons v Building Services Authority & Dreamstarter Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 240 Michael Wilson and Partners Limited v Nicholls & Ors (2011) 244 CLR 427 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 Re Australian Stevedoring Industry Board; Ex parte Melbourne Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd (1953) 88 CLR 100 Re Mr Justice Keely; Ex parte Ansett Transport Industries (Operations Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 27 R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 456 Smits & Anor v Roach & Ors (2006) 227 CLR 423 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:
| APPLICANT: | M.P Amerena of Burns & Associates solicitors for the Applicant |
| RESPONDENT: | N. Anreatis for the Queensland for the Building and Construction Commission |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Preliminary
In this interlocutory application against Mr Lyons, the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (“QBCC”) seeks to clarify…
Continue reading Lyons v Dreamstarter Pty Ltd & Anor
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lyons v Dreamstarter Pty Ltd & Anor [2016] QCATA 43
- Case
- [2016] QCATA 43
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the nature of the application and the procedural context in which it was made. It examined whether the QBCC's application was appropriately brought given that the Appeal Tribunal had not yet been constituted and whether the concerns regarding apprehended bias warranted further inquiry. The court also considered the pre-emptive nature of the application regarding indemnity costs. The court reasoned that the application should be dismissed because it was premature and did not meet the criteria for the court to intervene in the constitution of the tribunal.
The court ordered that the QBCC's application be dismissed and that the QBCC pay Mr Lyons reasonable costs assessed on an indemnity basis. The court further directed that the QBCC and Mr Lyons submit their views on the methodology for agreement or assessment of costs by specific deadlines. The orders as to costs would be determined on the papers after the specified deadlines unless an oral hearing was requested by either party.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application of the QBCC is dismissed
2. The QBCC pay Mr Lyons reasonable costs assessed on an indemnity basis
3. The QBCC is to make any submissions in relation to methodology for agreement or assessment of costs by:
4:00pm on 1 July 2016
4. Mr Lyons is to make any submissions in reply by:
4:00pm on 22 July 2016
5. Unless either party requires an oral hearing the orders as to costs will be determined on the papers after 22 July 2016
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.