Steven Group Investments Pty Ltd v Queensland building Services Authority

[2013] QCATA 197

CITATION: Steven Group Investments Pty Ltd v Queensland building Services Authority [2013] QCATA 197

PARTIES:	Stevenson Group Investments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
V
Queensland Building Services Authority Brian George Osborne (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL088-13

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Gilbert Trafford-Walker, Judicial Member

DELIVERED ON: 27 June 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: Application to stay is refused.

CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – APPLICATION TO STAY – where order to produce Scott Schedule – where applicant seeks to stay order pending decision of the appeal – whether stay should be granted

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.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Applicant seeks to stay an order to produce what is in effect a Scott Schedule in relation to work carried out in 2006.  I do not need to go into the whole history of the matter, however, it is sufficient for this issue to state that the Applicant seeks to add other work to the Scott Schedule which was not included in the original order.

2. The order for the Scott Schedule was made in January 2013.  The appeal in this matter is set for hearing on 31 July 2013.  The Applicant seeks to stay for one month after the determination of the appeal.

3. The Applicant argues that, if successful on appeal, it will have to perform additional work to add to the Scott Schedule, arguing that the initial work in preparation would be duplicated.  I fail to see this.  The Applicant has to draw up the Scott Schedule in relation to the work as ordered in January 2013.  If successful on appeal, an additional list can be drawn up adding the extra work.  Work performed earlier need not be repeated.

4. In addition to that, the Tribunal will look carefully at an argument which seeks to add work to its claim after this length of time has elapsed.  I cannot see any merit in this application apart from the fact that it would lead to further delay.

5. The application for a stay is dismissed.  Each party is to bear their own costs.

6. I would like to add this comment for the parties.  Cases such as this are likely to be lengthy with legal costs out of proportion to the claim.  One can go to litigation with the Court handing down a decision which neither party would like.  The alternative is to seek resolution through mediation.  The advantages in doing this are time, costs and a solution agreed upon by both parties.