| CITATION: | Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Vale [2017] QCATA 110 |
| PARTIES: | Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (Applicant/Appellant) | |
| v | ||
| Ricky Vale | ||
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL213-16 | |
| MATTER TYPE: | Application and Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Justice Carmody |
| DELIVERED ON: | 10 October 2017 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Vale 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] QCATA 110
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the presumptive position in section 100 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) was displaced because the interests of justice called for costs to be ordered against the wholly unsuccessful applicant, QRIC. The Court considered various factors in determining whether to order costs against QRIC, including the public funding of QRIC, the nature of the appeal, and the relative merits of the parties' cases.
The Court of Appeal held that the interests of justice did require costs to be ordered against QRIC. The Court found that the appeal proceedings were not worth pursuing in light of the limited prospects of success, the likely cost to both sides, the lack of any important question of principle, and the overreliance on a previous case as a yardstick. The Court also considered the public funding of QRIC and its role as a regulator, but ultimately found that these considerations were outweighed by the relative weakness of QRIC's appeal case. The Court ordered QRIC to pay Vale's costs of and incidental to the appeal proceedings within 30 days, to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be assessed on the standard basis.
In summary, the Court of Appeal found that the interests of justice required costs to be ordered against the wholly unsuccessful applicant, QRIC, in this case. The Court considered a range of factors in reaching this decision, including the public funding of QRIC, its role as a regulator, and the relative merits of the parties' cases. The Court ordered QRIC to pay Vale's costs of and incidental to the appeal proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal proceedings within 30 days, to be agreed, or failing agreement to be assessed on the standard basis.
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Of course, the publicly-funded protective role the QRIC has been assigned also plays in its favour. Nevertheless, even where the anti-cost rule prevails it may be relevant to consider the practical justice of depriving a poor respondent of the costs of successfully defending his position from attack by a publicly-funded regulator.Other relevant considerations While the conduct of the successful party is the most relevant cost consideration in regular court cases, the reasonableness of the unsuccessful party may be more pertinent as to whether costs of tribunal proceedings will be granted. Generally speaking, a finding that the opposing party acted unreasonably in bringing or prosecuting a defended claim, or conducted the proceeding vexatiously or in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged the applicant, will imply that a compensatory order for costs is called for. There was no suggestion that the QRIC acted capriciously, arbitrarily or unnecessarily to disadvantage the applicant in appealing.[55][55]QCAT Act s 102(3)(a). However, it may also be sufficient if the losing party pressed a clearly implausible, manifestly weak or incredible case.[56][56]Delekta v Moorabool SC & Ors [2003] VCAT 30, [12]. The liability of regulatory bodies for costs is governed by the same rules as apply to all other parties to tribunal proceedings. Their public functions are relevant under s 102(3)(e), and it would be an error not to give due recognition to this factor. For example, in Medical Board of Australia v Wong, the mandatory nature of the Board’s statutory referral obligation was relevant to the question of whether judicial proceedings had been properly brought, where there was no finding that the characterisation of the conduct in issue as professional misconduct was not only wrong, but unreasonable.[57] [57]Medical Board of Australia v Wong [2017] QCA 42. A regulator is expected to be a ‘model litigant’ in dealing with the profession it oversights.[58] Like any other administrative body, it is obliged to try to avoid rather than pursue litigation wherever possible. The expectation is that it will err on the side of caution when reviewing penalty discretions exercised by its own experts, and give proper consideration to whether the grounds of an appeal have substantial, not barely arguable, merit. That is not to say that QRIC is not entitled to maintain parity or argue for stiffer penalties in appropriate cases, but failure in a marginal case is a relevant costs factor against applying s 100 QCAT Act.[58]Mahanthirarasa v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (2008) 72 NSWLR 273. QRIC’s statutory responsibility for the protection of the public means the tribunal should not unreasonably (or unjustly) burden it with an order for costs. In principle, it will not usually be ordered to pay the costs of another party unless it has been unreasonable in performing its roles and functions.[59] While the role and responsibilities of QRIC are plainly relevant under s 102(3)(b) and (f), these considerations are offset by the argument that its losing appeal case was a relatively weak one, and meeting it put the applicant to ultimately needless time and financial costs.[59]Bode v Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board (No. 2) [2017] QCAT 84.