Till v Logan City Council (No. 2) - [2020] QCATA 11

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Till v Logan City Council (No. 2) [2020] QCATA 11

PARTIES:

SALESHNI SARIKA TILL
(appellant)

v

LOGAN CITY COUNCIL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL367-16

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR286-15

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

10 January 2020

HEARING DATE:

23 July 2019

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Howard, Presiding

Member Hughes

ORDERS:

1. Each party must pay their own costs in the appeal proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL MATTERS – POWER TO AWARD GENERALLY – GENERALLY –where strong indicator against awarding costs –whether in interests of justice to award costs—
where no disadvantage caused by other party’s actions—where relative strengths of parties’ claims did not support award of costs – where apparent dichotomy in parties’ resources did not support award of costs – where no basis to award indemnity costs – where appellant did not displace strong indicator against awarding costs – whether in interests of justice to award costs

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 4(c), s 23, s 100, s 102, s 102(3)

Airstrike Industrial Pty Ltd v Robertson & Anor [2014] QCATA 209
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Campbell v Kerry M Ryan Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 58
Colgate-Palmolive v Cussons (1993) 46 FCR 225
Creek v Raine & Horne Mossman [2011] QCATA 226
Crusty Devil Bakehouses Pty Ltd v WAW Developments Pty Ltd [2013] QCAT 159
Gardener & Ors v OLGR & Anor [2012] QCAT 62
Joanne Baxter and Fifties Food Pty Ltd v Subway Realty Pty Ltd & Anor [2013] QCAT 316
Lowik v Carl Linklater Pty Ltd [2010] QCAT 287
Pierpont v Zanetti & Ors [2012] QCAT 171
QBSA v Johnston [2011] QCATA 265
Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board v Abbott (No. 2) [2016] QCATA 49
Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No. 2) [2010] QCAT 412
Till v Logan City Council [2018] QCATA 150
Wharton v Duffy (QLD) Pty Ltd [2016] QCATA 12

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

R W Haddrick, instructed by Mahoneys Solicitors

Respondent:

N Lichti, solicitor of Minter Ellison

REASONS FOR DECISION

Costs in the Tribunal are not awarded as a matter of course. Each party must pay their own costs,[1] unless the Tribunal considers the interests of justice require it to order a party pay another party’s costs.[2]
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 100 (‘QCAT Act’).
[2]Ibid s 102.
There is, therefore, a strong indicator against awarding costs:
Under the QCAT Act the question that will arise in each case in which costs are sought is whether the circumstances relevant to the discretion inherent in the phrase ‘the interests of justice’ point so compellingly to a costs award that they overcome the strong contra-indication against cots orders in s 100.[3]
[3]Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No. 2) [2010] QCAT 412, [9].
It is within this context…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Till v Logan City Council (No. 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] QCATA 11
Decision Date: 10 January 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Till v Logan City Council (No. 2) involved the appellant, Till, and the respondent, Logan City Council, with the dispute focusing on the awarding of costs in an appeal proceeding. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was in the interests of justice to award costs, given the circumstances surrounding the case. This required the court to consider several factors, including the presence of a strong indicator against awarding costs, the absence of any disadvantage caused by the other party's actions, the relative strengths of the parties' claims, and the apparent dichotomy in the parties' resources. Additionally, the court had to determine if there was any basis to award indemnity costs and whether the appellant had successfully displaced the strong indicator against awarding costs.

The court meticulously examined the circumstances and found that there was a strong indicator against awarding costs, primarily due to the appellant's failure to successfully displace this indicator. The court noted that no disadvantage was caused by the other party's actions, and the relative strengths of the parties' claims did not support an award of costs. Furthermore, the apparent dichotomy in the parties' resources did not justify such an award. The court also concluded that there was no basis to award indemnity costs. Consequently, the court determined that it was not in the interests of justice to award costs to either party. The court's reasoning was grounded in a careful assessment of the factors at play and the principles of justice and fairness.

Based on the court's reasoning, it was decided that neither party was entitled to costs in the appeal proceeding. The court ordered that each party must pay their own costs in the appeal proceeding. This decision underscores the importance of a balanced approach in awarding costs, taking into account all relevant factors and the overarching principles of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Each party must pay their own costs in the appeal proceeding.

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:	Till v Logan City Council (No. 2) [2020] QCATA 11
PARTIES:	SALESHNI SARIKA TILL (appellant)
v
LOGAN CITY COUNCIL (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL367-16
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	GAR286-15
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	10 January 2020
HEARING DATE:	23 July 2019
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Senior Member Howard, Presiding Member Hughes
ORDERS:	1. Each party must pay their own costs in the appeal proceeding.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL MATTERS – POWER TO AWARD GENERALLY – GENERALLY –where strong indicator against awarding costs –whether in interests of justice to award costs— where no disadvantage caused by other party’s actions—where relative strengths of parties’ claims did not support award of costs – where apparent dichotomy in parties’ resources did not support award of costs – where no basis to award indemnity costs – where appellant did not displace strong indicator against awarding costs – whether in interests of justice to award costs Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 4(c), s 23, s 100, s 102, s 102(3) Airstrike Industrial Pty Ltd v Robertson & Anor [2014] QCATA 209 Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Campbell v Kerry M Ryan Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 58 Colgate-Palmolive v Cussons (1993) 46 FCR 225 Creek v Raine & Horne Mossman [2011] QCATA 226 Crusty Devil Bakehouses Pty Ltd v WAW Developments Pty Ltd [2013] QCAT 159 Gardener & Ors v OLGR & Anor [2012] QCAT 62 Joanne Baxter and Fifties Food Pty Ltd v Subway Realty Pty Ltd & Anor [2013] QCAT 316 Lowik v Carl Linklater Pty Ltd [2010] QCAT 287 Pierpont v Zanetti & Ors [2012] QCAT 171 QBSA v Johnston [2011] QCATA 265 Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board v Abbott (No. 2) [2016] QCATA 49 Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No. 2) [2010] QCAT 412 Till v Logan City Council [2018] QCATA 150 Wharton v Duffy (QLD) Pty Ltd [2016] QCATA 12
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	R W Haddrick, instructed by Mahoneys Solicitors
Respondent:	N Lichti, solicitor of Minter Ellison