Ricchetti v Lanbuilt Pty Ltd

Case [2012] QCATA 111
CITATION: Ricchetti and Ors v Lanbuilt Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 111
PARTIES: Clem Ricchetti
Angela Ricchetti
Bruno Ricchetti
(Applicant/Appellants)
v
Lanbuilt Pty Ltd
(Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:   APL023-11
MATTER TYPE: Appeals
HEARING DATE: On the papers
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: Justice Alan Wilson, President
Ms Joanne Browne, Member
DELIVERED ON: 27 June, 2012
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:     

1.   That the applicants pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal from and after 11 May 2011, assessed on an indemnity basis.

2.   The respondent shall file and serve its detailed claim for those costs, with an accompanying affidavit from its solicitor verifying the claim, within 28 days.

3.   The applicants shall file and serve any submissions in response within 28 days thereafter.
CATCHWORDS: 

COSTS – COSTS OF APPEAL – where pending proceeding – where difficult and complex proceeding – where parties legally represented – where the respondent had made an offer to settle – where respondent was the successful party in appeal proceedings – where the respondent sought an order for costs of the application for leave to appeal – whether costs order should be made in the interests of justice – whether strong contra-indication to overcome the mandate in s 100 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 that each party bear its own costs – whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to award costs under r 86 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Rules 2009

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 32, 100, 102(1), 102(3), 245
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009, r 86

Ascot v Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia [2010] QCAT 364 cited
Demac Homes (Qld) Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority & Ors [2011] QCAT 331 cited
Grasso & Anor v CMG Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] QCATA 326 cited
Queensland Building Services Authority v Johnston [2011] QCATA 265 applied
Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412 cited
Ricchetti v Lanbuilt Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 266 cited
Tamawood Ltd & Anor v Paans [2005] QCA 111 cited

Todrell Pty Ltd v Finch & Ors; Croydon Capital Pty Ltd v Todrell Pty Ltd & Anor) [2007] QSC

386 cited

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (“QCAT Act”).

REASONS FOR DECISION

JUSTICE ALAN WILSON

[1]I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of QCAT Member, and fellow member of the Appeal Tribunal in this matter, Ms Joanne Browne.

[2]I agree with those reasons, and the orders she proposes.

MEMBER JOANNE BROWNE

[3]This building dispute relates to proceedings commenced in 2007 by Lanbuilt Pty Ltd in the former Commercial and Consumer Tribunal (“CCT”) against Mr Clem and Mrs Angela Ricchetti, and Mr Bruno Ricchetti.

[4]The former CCT was abolished with the introduction of QCAT on 1 December 2009.

Continue reading Ricchetti v Lanbuilt Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ricchetti v Lanbuilt Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 111
Case
[2012] QCATA 111
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ricchetti v Lanbuilt Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the applicants, Ricchetti, and the respondent, Lanbuilt Pty Ltd, in the context of an appeal in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The applicants sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Tribunal, which was ultimately denied. Lanbuilt, as the successful party in the appeal proceedings, applied for an order that the applicants pay its costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal. The applicants contested this request, arguing that the proceedings were complex and difficult, and that they were legally represented. The central legal issues were whether an order for costs should be made in the interests of justice, and whether there were compelling reasons to deviate from the mandate in section 100 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 that each party bear its own costs.

The court examined the nature of the proceedings, which were indeed intricate and demanding, involving significant legal representation for both parties. Despite the complexity, the court considered the respondent's offer to settle and the unsuccessful outcome of the applicants' appeal. The court noted that the mandate in section 100 of the Act was not absolute and could be overridden if it would be unjust to enforce it. The court also assessed the discretion available under rule 86 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Rules 2009, which allows the Tribunal to award costs if it considers it just to do so. Given the unsuccessful nature of the applicants' appeal and the respondent's successful outcome, the court determined that it was appropriate to make a costs order. This decision was in the interests of justice and aligned with the principles of fairness and proportionality in legal proceedings.

In light of these considerations, the court made an order that the applicants pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal, assessed on an indemnity basis. The respondent was directed to file and serve its detailed claim for those costs, accompanied by an affidavit from its solicitor verifying the claim, within 28 days. The applicants were then required to file and serve any submissions in response within a further 28 days. This order aimed to ensure that the respondent could recover its costs, reflecting the successful outcome of the appeal proceedings and the principles of fairness in legal disputes.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the applicants pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal from and after 11 May 2011, assessed on an indemnity basis.

2. The respondent shall file and serve its detailed claim for those costs, with an accompanying affidavit from its solicitor verifying the claim, within 28 days.

3. The applicants shall file and serve any submissions in response within 28 days thereafter.

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.