Stumkat v Queensland Building Services Authority

CITATION: Stumkat v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 427

PARTIES:	Mr Christopher Martin Stumkat
v
Queensland Building Services Authority

APPLICATION NUMBER:   QR135-07     

MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:     26 August 2010

HEARD AT:  Decision on the papers

DECISION OF: Mr Alexander Crawford

DELIVERED ON: 26 August 2010

DELIVERED AT:      Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: The Applicant pay the Respondent the sum of $28,762.50 on or before 4:00pm on 30 September 2010

CATCHWORDS :  Costs; sections 100 & 102 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009; sections 70 & 71 of the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Mr Christopher Martin Stumkat
RESPONDENT:	Queensland Building Services Authority represented by MH Hindman of Counsel

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

At the conclusion of a 3 day hearing the Tribunal ordered that:

1. The Respondent’s decision of 23 July 2007 is confirmed except as set out in paragraph 2.

1. The Respondent’s decision of 23 July 2007 is set aside insofar as:

(a)By consent of the Authority in respect of item 20 insofar as it decides the first floor balustrade does not comply with the Council requirements and is accordingly defective;

(b)Item 36.

1. The Respondent will file in the Registry and serve on the Applicant - 1 page of written submissions on the question of costs by 4:30pm on 22 July 2010.

1. The Applicant will file in the Registry and serve on the Respondent - 1 page of written submissions on the question of costs by 4:30pm on 29 July 2010.

1. The question of costs is to be determined on the papers.
   
   

Background

1. The Applicant sought a review of the Respondent’s decision dated 23 July 2007 that the rectification work carried out by the Applicant in response to Direction to Rectify 24056 issued 4 July 2002 (being a direction to rectify requiring rectification of building work in accordance with section 72 of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 Qld) was unsatisfactory or incomplete. The Applicant applied to review the decision dated 23 July 2007 because it was alleged that the decision was in all the circumstances unfair to him. At the conclusion of the 3 day trial, the Tribunal made the orders as above stated.

1. The submissions for the Respondent on costs dated 22 July 2010 are as follows:

OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT ON COSTS

1.The Respondent has been substantially successful in defeating the review application.

2.There are a number of decisions of QCAT in respect of costs that conclude that in a pending proceeding (which this is), s. 71 of the CCT Act is the appropriate cost regime to apply.[1]

[1] Billing v Queensland Building Services Authority [2009] QCAT 31 (23 December 2009); Leinhart v Sunrise Homes Pty Ltd [2010] QCAT 156 (13 January 2010); Malay Industries Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 310 (30 June 2010); Mair v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 74 at 37.

3.Even if the QCAT regime applies, the Respondent contends that this is…