Oehlman v Community Services Australia Pty Ltd

CITATION: Oehlman v Community Services Australia Pty Ltd and Anor [2012] QCAT 174

PARTIES:	Deborah Oehlman
v
Community Services Australia Pty Ltd Catherine Banks

APPLICATION NUMBER:   ADL093-10

MATTER TYPE: Anti-discrimination matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: R M Clifford, Member

DELIVERED ON: 4 January 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:      1.    That there be no order for costs in the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS : 

Procedure – costs – discretion to award costs – whether s 100 should be displaced – when applicant unsuccessful in anti-discrimination matter – when applicant rejected offer to settle

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, ss 100, 102(3), 105
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009, r 86

Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Mr K Watson of Counsel, instructed by Susan Moriarty & Associates
RESPONDENT:	Mr A Hervert of Counsel, instructed by Hall Payne Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1. On 8 November 2011 the Tribunal dismissed complaints of alleged sexuality discrimination in employment against the Respondents, Community Services Australia Pty Ltd and Catherine Banks.

2. The Tribunal also ordered that, in the event the Respondents seek costs, they must file an application within 21 days with accompanying submissions to the Tribunal and send a copy to the Complainant, Ms Oehlman, no later than 21 days after the date of the order.  Ms Oehlman was to file submissions in response in the Tribunal and send a copy to the Respondents within 14 days of the filing date of the application. 

3. The Tribunal ordered that a determination of costs will be made on the basis of the written documentation without an oral hearing.

4. The Respondents, CSA and Dr Banks, have now made a joint application for costs.

5. Ms Oehlman has filed a response resisting the application.

Legislation

1. The starting point in regards to costs in this Tribunal is clearly stated in the QCAT Act. Unless otherwise provided by the QCAT Act or an enabling Act (in this case the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991) each party to a proceeding must bear the party’s own costs for the proceeding.[1]

   [1]        Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009, s 100.

2. The Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 does not provide for orders for costs.

3. The QCAT Act further provides the Tribunal may make an order requiring a party to a pay all or a stated part of the costs of another party if the Tribunal considers the interests of justice require it to make the order.[2]

   [2] Ibid, s 102(1).

4. The QCAT Act provides when deciding whether to award costs the Tribunal may have regard to the following matters, in summary:

a)whether a party has acted in away unnecessarily disadvantages another party [with reference to the’ strike-out’ provisions in section 48(1)(a-g)];

b)the nature and complexity of the dispute;

c)the relative strengths of claims made by each party;

d)... not applicable in this matter;

e)financial circumstances of the parties;

f)anything else the Tribunal…