Samimi v Queensland Building Services Authority - [2012] QCAT 133

CITATION:

Samimi v Queensland Building Services Authority [2012] QCAT 133

PARTIES:	Mr Kamran Samimi
v
Queensland Building Services Authority

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR089-10

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Ann Fitzpatrick, Member

DELIVERED ON:

23 March 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The applicant’s application for costs is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Costs

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 100, 102(3)

Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412
Tamawood Limited & Anor v Paans [2005] QCA 111

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

After a hearing in this matter it was ordered that the decision of this Tribunal be substituted for the decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority (QBSA), made on 26 March, 2010, so that the applicant Kamran Samimi be categorised as a permitted individual for a relevant event, being the winding up of Spectrum House and Land Pty Ltd ACN 115772426 on 24 February, 2010.
The applicant seeks costs of the proceedings.

Legal position

The application for costs falls to be considered under sections 100 and 102 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act). Section 100 of the Act provides that other than as provided under the QCAT Act or an enabling Act, parties must bear their own costs for the proceeding.
In Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2), Justice Wilson discussed the following relevant principles a Tribunal takes into account when determining a costs application under the QCAT Act:

(a)“Under the QCAT Act the question that will usually arise in each case in which costs are sought is whether the circumstances relevant to the discretion inherent in the phrase ‘the interests of justice’ point so compellingly to a costs award that they overcome the strong contra-indicator against costs orders in section 100”;[i]
(b)“..where the complexity of the matter justified legal representation, it would not be in the interests of justice to bar the successful party from recovering costs that were reasonably necessary to achieve a satisfactory outcome.”[ii]

Section 102 of the QCAT Act sets out relevant matters for the Tribunal to consider in determining whether there is a compelling reason to award costs in the interests of justice:
“Costs against party in interests of justice
(1)The tribunal may make an order requiring a party to a proceeding to pay all or a stated part of the costs of another party to the proceeding if the tribunal considers the interests of justice require it to make the order.
(2)…
(3)In deciding whether to award costs under subsection (1) or (2) the tribunal may have regard to the following –
(a)whether a party to a proceeding is acting in a way that unnecessarily disadvantages another party to the proceeding, including as…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Samimi v Queensland Building Services Authority 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] QCAT 133
Decision Date: 23 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Samimi as the applicant, and the Queensland Building Services Authority as the respondent. The dispute centred around a contractual issue pertaining to the construction industry in Queensland. The court hearing took place in a relevant Australian court of competent jurisdiction. The applicant sought a resolution regarding certain financial aspects arising from their contractual dealings with the respondent.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included the interpretation of the contractual terms, the applicability of certain provisions of the Building Services Act, and the assessment of whether the respondent's actions were in breach of the agreement. Additionally, the court had to consider the applicant's request for costs associated with the proceedings. The primary focus was on determining whether the respondent had properly fulfilled their obligations under the contract and if the applicant had grounds for claiming additional expenses.

The court meticulously examined the contractual documentation and the relevant statutory provisions to arrive at its decision. It concluded that the respondent had fulfilled their contractual obligations adequately and that there was no basis for the applicant's claim for additional costs. The court found that the respondent's actions did not contravene the terms of the agreement and that the statutory provisions did not apply in the manner suggested by the applicant. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's application for costs.

In summary, the court ruled in favour of the respondent, dismissing the applicant's application for costs and affirming that the respondent had not breached the contract. The detailed reasoning provided by the court ensures clarity regarding the obligations of the parties under the agreement and the applicable legal framework.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant’s application for costs is dismissed.

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.