| CITATION: | Wolfgram v Racing Queensland [2012] QCAT 44 |
| PARTIES: | Mrs Tracey Anne Wolfgram |
| v | |
| Racing Queensland |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR020-11 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Sandra G Deane, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 7 February 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | [1] The application for costs is allowed. [2] Racing Queensland is to pay Mrs Wolfgram’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including reserved costs (if any) on the standard basis of assessment in accordance with the District Court Scale of Costs less Racing Queensland’s costs on the standard basis of assessment in accordance with the District Court Scale of Costs thrown away as a result of the late disclosure of Dr Wright’s report on 15 April 2011. [3] If the amount of Mrs Wolfgram’s costs less Racing Queensland’s costs are not agreed between Mrs Wolfgram and Racing Queensland within 14 days, the costs are to be assessed by Hickey & Garrett, Legal Costs Consultants, Level 21, 141 Queen Street, Brisbane. [4] Racing Queensland is to pay Mrs Wolfgram’s costs less Racing Queensland’s costs (as agreed or assessed) within 14 days of such agreement or assessment. |
| CATCHWORDS: | COSTS – application allowed Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 48(1)(a)-(g ), 100, 102, 107 Tamawood Limited & Anor v Paans [2005] QCA 111 TNT Management Pty Ltd v Brooks (1979) 53 ALJR 267 Malay Industries Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 310 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
This is an application for costs by Mrs Wolfgram consequent upon her successful application to review a decision of Racing Queensland.
Mrs Wolfgram seeks an order that Racing Queensland pay all Mrs Wolfgram’s costs on a standard basis on the Supreme Court scale as agreed between the parties or failing agreement to be assessed in accordance with UCPR. Racing Queensland opposes the application for costs and submits it ought to be dismissed.
The QCAT Act provides ‘Other than as provided under this Act or an enabling Act, each party to a proceeding must bear the party’s own costs for the proceedings.’[1]
[1] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 100.
The Racing Act 2002 is the relevant enabling Act. Chapter 5[2] sets out the powers of QCAT to review certain decisions. There is no express provision in relation to the awarding of costs. Therefore the relevant provisions governing this application are those contained in the QCAT Act.
[2] Sections 150- 154 Racing Act 2002.
Section 102(1) states ‘The tribunal may make an order requiring a party to a proceeding to pay all or…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Wolfgram v Racing Queensland 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2012] QCAT 44
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to determine whether Racing Queensland's late disclosure of a report by Dr Wright on 15 April 2011 warranted an award of costs to Mrs Wolfgram. The court considered the implications of the late disclosure on the proceedings and whether it caused any detriment to Mrs Wolfgram, which might justify an order for costs.
The court found that the late disclosure of Dr Wright's report by Racing Queensland did indeed warrant an award of costs to Mrs Wolfgram. The court reasoned that the late disclosure had a significant impact on the proceedings, leading to an increase in costs for Mrs Wolfgram. Consequently, the court ordered Racing Queensland to pay Mrs Wolfgram's costs of and incidental to the proceeding, minus any costs thrown away as a result of the late disclosure. If the parties could not agree on the amount of costs within 14 days, the matter was to be referred to Hickey & Garrett, Legal Costs Consultants, for assessment. Finally, Racing Queensland was directed to pay the agreed or assessed costs within 14 days of such agreement or assessment.
Orders
Orders of the court
[1] The application for costs is allowed.
[2] Racing Queensland is to pay Mrs Wolfgram’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including reserved costs (if any) on the standard basis of assessment in accordance with the District Court Scale of Costs less Racing Queensland’s costs on the standard basis of assessment in accordance with the District Court Scale of Costs thrown away as a result of the late disclosure of Dr Wright’s report on 15 April 2011.
[3] If the amount of Mrs Wolfgram’s costs less Racing Queensland’s costs are not agreed between Mrs Wolfgram and Racing Queensland within 14 days, the costs are to be assessed by Hickey & Garrett, Legal Costs Consultants, Level 21, 141 Queen Street, Brisbane.
[4] Racing Queensland is to pay Mrs Wolfgram’s costs less Racing Queensland’s costs (as agreed or assessed) within 14 days of such agreement or assessment.
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.