State of Queensland & Anor v Bell

The case of State of Queensland & Anor v Bell involved an anti-discrimination claim where the respondent sought compensation. Both parties achieved partial success in the proceedings. The tribunal awarded the respondent two-thirds of her costs, a decision the applicants sought to challenge by applying for leave to appeal on the grounds that the costs discretion had been wrongly exercised. The applicants contended that the tribunal misapplied its discretion by not adhering to a presumed ‘no costs’ policy, and that an order for costs was necessary in the interest of justice, given that the applicants would suffer substantial injustice if not granted leave to appeal.

The court was required to determine whether there was a reasonable case that the tribunal's exercise of its discretion in awarding costs was erroneous. This involved assessing the tribunal's application of its policy and whether the discretion was exercised in a manner that failed to consider the principles of justice, particularly in light of the ‘no costs’ presumption. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the applicants would indeed face substantial injustice without the opportunity to appeal the costs decision.

The court found that the tribunal had not miscarried in its exercise of discretion. It reasoned that the tribunal had appropriately considered the relevant principles and the ‘no costs’ presumption, and that the award of two-thirds of the costs was within its discretion. The court further determined that the applicants did not demonstrate a reasonable case that they would suffer substantial injustice if the appeal was not granted. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The court ordered that the application for leave to appeal be refused. This decision upheld the tribunal’s discretion in awarding costs and emphasised the importance of adhering to established principles in such proceedings.