Murphy v Number One Quality Homes Pty Ltd - [2022] QCATA 125

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Murphy & Anor v Number One Quality Homes Pty Ltd [2022] QCATA 125

PARTIES:

Daniel murphy

(First applicant)

judith murphy

(Second applicant)

v

Number One Quality Homes Pty Ltd

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL309-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL364-18

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

2 September 2022

HEARING DATE:

25 August 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

President Mellifont

ORDERS:

The Applicants pay the Respondent’s costs of the application for leave to appeal against the decision of the Tribunal delivered on 7 September 2020 to be agreed or, in default of agreement, to be assessed by an assessor appointed by the Tribunal by reference to the District Court scale of costs.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – QCATA – where parties were parties to a building dispute decided by QCAT – where the applicants made an application for leave against the decision – where QCATA dismissed the application for leave to appeal – where no order was made as to costs – whether Tribunal has power to award costs in building dispute – whether costs should be awarded – whether costs should be awarded as per Magistrates Court scale

Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) s 69(2)

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) s 77(3)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 7, s 100, s 106

Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 24

ACDG Pty Ltd trading as Swimin Construction v Bryant (No 2) [2017] QCAT 216

Allen & Anor v Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd (No 3) [2021] QCATA 143
Anderson v Nick Ruhle Homes Pty Ltd and Anor (No 2) [2012] QCAT 531
Donald Campbell and Co Ltd v Pollak [1927] AC 732
Fast Access Finance (Beaudesert) Pty Ltd and Anor v Charter and Anor (No 2) [2012] QCATA 172
Grace v Grace (No 9) [2014] NSWSC 1239
In re Elgindata Ltd (No 2) [1993] 1 All ER 232
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
Lyons v Dreamstarter Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 142
McNab Constructions Australia Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 749
Milne v Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania (1956) 95 CLR 460
Mt Cotton Constructions Pty Ltd v Greer & Anor (No 2) [2016] QCAT 387
Murphy & Anor v Number One Quality Homes Pty Ltd [2021] QCATA 128
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513
Number One Quality Homes Pty Ltd v Murphy & Anor [2020] QCAT 339
Ohn v Walton (1995) 36 NSWLR 77
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
Ritter v Godfrey [1920] 2 KB 47
Reading Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Mutual Provident Society (1999) 217 ALR 495
Tepko Pty Ltd v Water Board (2001) 206 CLR 1
Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Allan (Costs) [2016] VSC 633

Warren v Queensland Law Society Incorporated (No 2) [2013] QCAT 234

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Murphy v Number One Quality Homes Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] QCATA 125
Decision Date: 2 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Murphy v Number One Quality Homes Pty Ltd, the parties were involved in a building dispute which was decided by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). Following the decision, the applicants made an application for leave to appeal against the QCAT's decision. QCAT dismissed the application for leave to appeal, and no order was made as to costs.

The legal issues before the court were whether QCAT has the power to award costs in a building dispute and, if so, whether costs should be awarded and, if so, whether they should be awarded as per the Magistrates Court scale. The applicants argued that QCAT had no power to award costs in the context of a building dispute and that, even if it did, the costs should be awarded as per the Magistrates Court scale. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that QCAT does have the power to award costs in building disputes and that the costs should be awarded in accordance with the District Court scale.

The court held that QCAT has the power to award costs in building disputes. The court further held that the costs should be awarded as per the District Court scale. The court reasoned that QCAT has inherent jurisdiction to award costs, and that the costs should be awarded as per the District Court scale as the parties had agreed to the District Court scale of costs in their contract.

The applicants were ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the application for leave to appeal against the decision of the Tribunal delivered on 7 September 2020. The costs were to be agreed or, in default of agreement, to be assessed by an assessor appointed by the Tribunal by reference to the District Court scale of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Applicants pay the Respondent’s costs of the application for leave to appeal against the decision of the Tribunal delivered on 7 September 2020 to be agreed or, in default of agreement, to be assessed by an assessor appointed by the Tribunal by reference to the District Court scale of costs.

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.