STU v JKL (Qld) Pty Ltd - [2019] QCAT 55

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

STU v JKL (Qld) Pty Ltd & Ors [2019] QCAT 55

PARTIES:

STU
(applicant)

v

JKL (QLD) PTY LTD

(first respondent)

GHI

(second respondent)

JKL Limited

(third respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

ADL005-12

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

DELIVERED ON:

5 March 2019

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

DECISION OF:

Member Ann Fitzpatrick

ORDERS:

1.   The Order of the Tribunal made 27 February 2013 continues in force.

2.   The Third Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of the proceeding on the standard basis up to 6 April 2016 and on an indemnity basis from that date.

3.   The costs of the proceeding include all costs of preparation for the first hearing and the costs of the first hearing from 18-20 February 2013 as well as the costs of preparation for the rehearing and the costs of the rehearing from 18, 19 and 20 May 2016 together with the costs of the submissions in relation to costs.

4.   The costs payable by the Third Respondent be on the District Court Scale as agreed or failing agreement to be assessed at the Third Respondent’s expense.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – procedure – costs – whether interests of justice require an order for costs – whether an order for costs should be made after the applicant made an offer to settle which was not accepted

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s100, 102, 105
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld) Rule 86

Hill-Douglas v Area Square Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 068
Lyons v Dreamstarter Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 071
McEwen v Barker Builders [2010] QCATA 49
Mount Cotton Constructions Pty Ltd v Greer (No2) [2017] QCAT 98
Neverfail Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Harris Siksana Family Trust & Anor v Radford (No.2) [2017] QCATA 73
Richetti v Lanbuilt [2012] QCATA 111
State of Queensland & Anor v Bell [2016] QCATA 176
Tamawood Limited & Anor v Paans [2005] 2 QdR 101; [2005] QCA 111

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

DP O’Gorman SC, with RE Reid, instructed by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

Third Respondent:

R Perry QC, with J Merrell, instructed by Aitken Legal Solicitors

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

This decision and submissions made by the parties are subject to a non-publication order made on 27 February 2013 prohibiting the publication of any information that may enable any of the parties in this proceeding to be identified. For the avoidance of doubt, I order that the order made on 27 February 2013 have continuing operation.
In a decision in this matter delivered on 6 December 2016, the Applicant and Third Respondent were ordered to file and serve submissions in relation to costs.
In the interim, the Third Respondent pursued an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal of this Tribunal. Thereafter, the Third Respondent appealed to the Queensland Court of Appeal. The…

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.

Continue reading STU v JKL (Qld) Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: STU v JKL (Qld) Pty Ltd [2019] QCAT 55
Case: [2019] QCAT 55
Decision Date: 5 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of STU v JKL (Qld) Pty Ltd, the applicant, STU, sought an order for costs against the third respondent, JKL (Qld) Pty Ltd, in proceedings before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The primary dispute involved whether costs should be awarded to STU after it made an offer to settle which JKL (Qld) Pty Ltd did not accept. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the interests of justice required an order for costs to be made. Secondly, whether an order for costs should be made in light of the applicant's offer to settle which was not accepted by the third respondent. The court needed to consider the principles of costs in administrative law and the circumstances surrounding the offer to settle.

The Supreme Court found that the interests of justice did require an order for costs to be made. The court held that while the offer to settle did not automatically entitle STU to costs, the failure of JKL (Qld) Pty Ltd to accept the offer was a relevant factor. The court considered the conduct of the parties and the outcome of the proceedings in determining that an order for costs was warranted. The court ordered that the third respondent pay STU's costs of the proceeding on the standard basis up to a specified date and on an indemnity basis thereafter. The costs included preparation and hearing expenses, as well as costs related to submissions on costs.

The court further specified the basis on which the costs should be assessed, either by agreement or, if no agreement was reached, at the third respondent's expense. The court's orders were designed to ensure that STU was compensated for the costs incurred in pursuing the matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Order of the Tribunal made 27 February 2013 continues in force.

2. The Third Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of the proceeding on the standard basis up to 6 April 2016 and on an indemnity basis from that date.

3. The costs of the proceeding include all costs of preparation for the first hearing and the costs of the first hearing from 18-20 February 2013 as well as the costs of preparation for the rehearing and the costs of the rehearing from 18, 19 and 20 May 2016 together with the costs of the submissions in relation to costs.

4. The costs payable by the Third Respondent be on the District Court Scale as agreed or failing agreement to be assessed at the Third Respondent’s expense.

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.

CITATION:	STU v JKL (Qld) Pty Ltd & Ors [2019] QCAT 55
PARTIES:	STU (applicant)
v
JKL (QLD) PTY LTD (first respondent) GHI (second respondent) JKL Limited (third respondent)
APPLICATION NO:	ADL005-12
MATTER TYPE:	Anti-discrimination matters
DELIVERED ON:	5 March 2019
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
DECISION OF:	Member Ann Fitzpatrick
ORDERS:	1. The Order of the Tribunal made 27 February 2013 continues in force. 2. The Third Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of the proceeding on the standard basis up to 6 April 2016 and on an indemnity basis from that date. 3. The costs of the proceeding include all costs of preparation for the first hearing and the costs of the first hearing from 18-20 February 2013 as well as the costs of preparation for the rehearing and the costs of the rehearing from 18, 19 and 20 May 2016 together with the costs of the submissions in relation to costs. 4. The costs payable by the Third Respondent be on the District Court Scale as agreed or failing agreement to be assessed at the Third Respondent’s expense.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – procedure – costs – whether interests of justice require an order for costs – whether an order for costs should be made after the applicant made an offer to settle which was not accepted Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s100, 102, 105 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld) Rule 86 Hill-Douglas v Area Square Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 068 Lyons v Dreamstarter Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 071 McEwen v Barker Builders [2010] QCATA 49 Mount Cotton Constructions Pty Ltd v Greer (No2) [2017] QCAT 98 Neverfail Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Harris Siksana Family Trust & Anor v Radford (No.2) [2017] QCATA 73 Richetti v Lanbuilt [2012] QCATA 111 State of Queensland & Anor v Bell [2016] QCATA 176 Tamawood Limited & Anor v Paans [2005] 2 QdR 101; [2005] QCA 111
REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	DP O’Gorman SC, with RE Reid, instructed by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
Third Respondent:	R Perry QC, with J Merrell, instructed by Aitken Legal Solicitors
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).