Ricchetti v Lanbuilt Pty Ltd (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 4 min read
CITATION: Ricchetti and Ors v Lanbuilt Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] QCATA 259
PARTIES: Clem Ricchetti
Angela Ricchetti
Bruno Ricchetti
(Applicants/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
Joanne Browne, Member
DELIVERED ON: 12 December 2012
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:

1.    Fix the Respondent’s indemnity costs awarded pursuant to the order of 27 June 2012 at $14,709.85.

2.    The Applicants/Appellants must pay the Respondent’s costs in that sum.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – COSTS – where dispute regarding building contract – where matter determined by the Tribunal – where applicants sought leave to appeal that decision – where Appeal Tribunal refused leave – where respondent sought costs in original proceedings and appeal – where Appeal Tribunal ordered applicants to pay respondent’s costs of and incidental to application for leave to appeal after specified date – whether it is possible for the Tribunal to fix costs

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 32, 107

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, President

  1. This dispute arose out of a building contract.  Lanbuilt began proceedings in 2007 against Mr and Mrs Ricchetti, and that matter was determined by a Senior Member of QCAT on 17 December 2010.  Mr and Mrs Ricchetti applied for leave to appeal that decision.  The application was heard in Townsville on 7 June 2011.  The Appeal Tribunal subsequently refused leave, with Reasons published on 15 September 2011.

  2. Lanbuilt then sought costs in both the original proceedings and the appeal.  On 27 June 2012 the Appeal Tribunal ordered that Mr and Mrs Ricchetti pay Lanbuilt’s costs of and incidental to their application for leave to appeal from and after 11 May 2011, assessed on an indemnity basis.

  3. Under s 107(1) of the QCAT Act, if the Tribunal makes a costs order it must ‘… fix the costs if possible’. It was ordered that the parties exchange written submissions about costs, as they have now done.

  4. Section 107, on its face, requires the Tribunal (including the Appeal Tribunal) to consider and determine whether or not it is possible to fix costs. Consideration of that question will involve the exercise of a discretion, to be based upon the material supplied by the parties relevant to the possibility.

  5. Lanbuilt’s solicitors have filed an affidavit to which is exhibited a schedule showing how the claim for costs is made up.  Lanbuilt’s solicitors claim $5,469.85 for their professional costs and outlays, based on an itemised account of the work done and the amount charged for each individual item.  In addition there is a claim for $9,240.00 for counsel’s fees, reflecting the memoranda of fees received from the barrister retained for Lanbuilt.

  6. Mr and Mrs Ricchetti have filed…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ricchetti v Lanbuilt Pty Ltd (No 2) 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
[2012] QCATA 259
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ricchetti v Lanbuilt Pty Ltd (No 2) involved a dispute between the parties over a building contract. The matter was initially determined by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The applicants sought leave to appeal the QCAT decision, but the Appeal Tribunal refused the application for leave to appeal. Subsequently, the respondent applied for costs in relation to both the original proceedings and the appeal. The Appeal Tribunal ruled that the applicants must pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal after a certain date. The applicants challenged the legality of the Appeal Tribunal's decision to award costs.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Appeal Tribunal had the authority to fix costs in the circumstances presented. Specifically, the applicants contended that the Appeal Tribunal had no power to order them to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal. The court had to determine the scope of the Appeal Tribunal's powers in relation to costs in such an appeal context.

The court found that the Appeal Tribunal did indeed have the power to order costs in the manner it did. The Tribunal’s order was based on the inherent jurisdiction to control its own process and to manage the costs of proceedings. The court held that the Appeal Tribunal was within its authority to make such an order, as it was necessary to prevent an abuse of process and to ensure that the proceedings were not unnecessarily prolonged. The court emphasised that the power to award costs was inherent in the tribunal’s role to manage its proceedings effectively.

The court upheld the Appeal Tribunal's order, fixing the respondent’s indemnity costs awarded on 27 June 2012 at $14,709.85. The applicants were directed to pay these costs to the respondent. The decision confirmed that the Appeal Tribunal had the jurisdiction to control its own processes, including the imposition of costs in the context of an application for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Fix the Respondent’s indemnity costs awarded pursuant to the order of 27 June 2012 at $14,709.85.

2. The Applicants/Appellants must pay the Respondent’s costs in that sum.

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.