Simonova v State of Queensland (costs)

Simonova v State of Queensland (costs) involved the issue of whether the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) had the authority to award costs against a non-party. The dispute centred on the interpretation of section 102 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, which allows the Tribunal to order a party to a proceeding to pay costs. The applicant argued that QCAT lacked the power to impose costs on Ms Krzeva, who was not a party to the proceeding but was acting as an agent for her mother, the principal.

The court examined whether Ms Krzeva could be considered a party to the proceeding under section 39 of the QCAT Act. This section lists the conditions under which a person can be deemed a party, including being the applicant, being subject to the applicant's decision-seeking, intervening in the proceeding, being joined as a party, or being specified as a party by an enabling Act. The court found that Ms Krzeva did not fit within any of these categories and was not a party for the purposes of the costs provisions. Furthermore, the court highlighted that section 102 specifically refers to 'a party', which contrasts with broader provisions like order 91 rule 1 of the Queensland Supreme Court Rules.

The court concluded that the Tribunal does not have the power to award costs against a non-party. This conclusion was based on the principle that only parties who have initiated or defended the proceedings should bear the risk of an adverse costs order. Since Ms Krzeva was not a party, imposing a costs liability upon her would be unjust as she had not chosen to participate in the proceedings and may lack a real interest in them. Consequently, the Tribunal's attempt to order costs against Ms Krzeva was deemed beyond its statutory authority.