Reihana v Beenleigh Show Society (No 2)
Case
•
[2020] QSC 194
•26 June 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Reihana v Beenleigh Show Society (No 2) [2020] QSC 194
[2020] QSC 194
26 June 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Reihana v Beenleigh Show Society (No 2) involves the applicant seeking a review of an order made by the Beenleigh Show Society, which had refused her participation in a show. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The central issue before the Tribunal was whether the general rule that costs follow the event should apply, or if there were special or exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from this principle.
The Tribunal considered the principle that costs generally follow the event, which means the unsuccessful party usually pays the successful party’s costs. However, this rule is not absolute and can be departed from if special or exceptional circumstances are present. In this case, the applicant was entirely unsuccessful in her application for a statutory order of review. Despite this, the Tribunal acknowledged that the applicant’s application was made in good faith, and there was a reasonable prospect of success, which influenced their consideration of costs. Nevertheless, the Tribunal held that the general rule should apply, and costs should follow the event.
Given the wholly unsuccessful outcome for the applicant, the Tribunal ordered that the applicant pay the third respondent’s costs of the proceeding on the standard basis. This decision underscores the importance of the general rule in civil proceedings, while also recognising the Tribunal's discretion to consider special or exceptional circumstances when determining the allocation of costs.
The Tribunal considered the principle that costs generally follow the event, which means the unsuccessful party usually pays the successful party’s costs. However, this rule is not absolute and can be departed from if special or exceptional circumstances are present. In this case, the applicant was entirely unsuccessful in her application for a statutory order of review. Despite this, the Tribunal acknowledged that the applicant’s application was made in good faith, and there was a reasonable prospect of success, which influenced their consideration of costs. Nevertheless, the Tribunal held that the general rule should apply, and costs should follow the event.
Given the wholly unsuccessful outcome for the applicant, the Tribunal ordered that the applicant pay the third respondent’s costs of the proceeding on the standard basis. This decision underscores the importance of the general rule in civil proceedings, while also recognising the Tribunal's discretion to consider special or exceptional circumstances when determining the allocation of costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Limitation Periods
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
10
Statutory Material Cited
3
Latoudis v Casey
[1990] HCA 59
Oshlack v Richmond River Council
[1998] HCA 11
Bucknell v Robins
[2004] QCA 474