Valuers Registration Board v Murphy (No. 2)

[2019] QCAT 332

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Valuers Registration Board v Murphy (No. 2) [2019] QCAT 332

PARTIES:

VALUERS REGISTRATION BOARD

(applicant)

v

NEIL PATRICK MURPHY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR252-18

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

31 October 2019

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Kanowski

ORDERS:

The application by Neil Patrick Murphy for a costs order is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS – GENERALLY – where disciplinary referral dismissed because of late referral – whether costs should be awarded to respondent

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 47(2)(c), s 102

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), r 86

Medical Board of Australia v Wong [2017] QCA 42

Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Vale [2017] QCATA 110
Seeiseo Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Taralla Apartments CTS 15627 (No. 2) [2019] QCAT 10

Tamawood Ltd & Anor v Paans [2005] QCA 111

REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	RBG Lawyers
Respondent:	KM Riedel instructed by Colin, Biggers & Paisley Lawyers
APPEARANCES:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. Mr Murphy is a registered valuer. He seeks an order for costs he incurred as respondent to a disciplinary referral made to the Tribunal by Valuers Registration Board. I dismissed the referral on 25 February 2019 on the basis that it was made late, and no extension of time should be granted.[1]

   [1]Valuers Registration Board v Murphy [2019] QCAT 41.

Background 

1. In September 2016 Mr Murphy appeared as an agent for a party in an interlocutory proceeding in the Land Court of Queensland. The Land Court gave its decision on the interlocutory matter in November 2016.[2] In the course of the reasons, the Court expressed the view that Mr Murphy may have breached an ethical rule in appearing as an advocate because another valuer in his firm had provided the valuation relied on by the party in the proceeding.

   [2]Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd v Valuer-General; The Trust Company Ltd v Valuer-General [2016] QLC 63.

2. The Board subsequently investigated a complaint relating to this conduct.

3. On 20 March 2018 the Board wrote to Mr Murphy advising that it considered that he had engaged in misconduct. It proposed to take disciplinary action by way of a reprimand, an order for an undertaking, and a monetary penalty.

4. Under section 52 of the Valuers Registration Act 1992 (Qld), Mr Murphy then had three options: making written representations to the Board, requesting a hearing before the Board, or requiring the Board to refer the matter to the Tribunal. Mr Murphy chose the third option, on 10 April 2018. The Board made the referral to the Tribunal on 19 September 2018.

5. On 12 October 2018 Mr Murphy applied for dismissal of the proceeding on the basis that the matter had not been referred ‘as soon…