Beatton v Strongbridge Homes Pty Ltd [2026] QCAT 66

[3] Strongbridge has not filed any submissions in response. The time for doing so has expired. It has not sought an extension of time to do so.

[4] I now proceed to decide the application for costs on the papers.

[5] As referred to in my reasons for decision,[3] it is a well-established principle that the Tribunal's discretion to award costs in a building dispute[4] is a broader and more general discretion than the one conferred by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ('QCAT Act').[5] The Tribunal, in exercising its general discretion to award costs, may consider the matters referred to in section 102(3) of the QCAT Act.

[6] Despite directing the parties' attention to these matters Mr Beatton did not include any submissions as to section 102(3) matters in his application nor did he address whether there were any relevant settlement offers made during the proceedings.

(a) Strongbridge acted in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged him, as mentioned in section 48 of the QCAT Act. There is no sufficient evidence of any such disadvantage. This is not a factor in favour of an award of costs.

(b) the nature and complexity of the dispute warrants order for costs. This dispute was relatively complex. My reasons for decision extend to 17 pages. This is a factor in favour of an award of costs.

[8] Mr Beatton was substantially successful in obtaining a decision in his favour. The relative strength of the claims is a factor in favour of an award of costs.

[9] The financial circumstances of the parties is not a factor in favour or against an award of costs as there is no specific evidence before the Tribunal on this point.

[10] In my earlier reasons for decision, I directed the parties' attention to whether there were any relevant settlement offers made during the proceedings.[6] None have been brought to my attention. This is not a factor in favour or against an award of costs.

[11] There is evidence before me that Mr Beatton paid the filing fee of $358. Other costs sought by Mr Beatton are in respect of amounts paid to solicitors between January 2022 and April 2024. No direction permitting legal representation was made. The parties were self-represented.

[12] I accept that Mr Beatton's success will be partly eroded through the costs incurred.

[13] Weighing all the factors I consider that it is in the interests of justice for costs to be awarded.

[14] Where costs are awarded, they are to be fixed if possible.[7]

[15] In respect of the solicitors' costs claimed, Mr Beatton provided some information, in a table, indicating that the amounts were paid by him but did not provide source documents. There is insufficient evidence as to the nature of the work performed or costs incurred so I am unable to form a view as to whether they should be awarded in whole or in part.

[1] Beatton v Strongbridge Homes Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 184.

[2] Application for miscellaneous matters (costs) filed 27 June 2025.

[3] Beatton v Strongbridge Homes Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 184, [79]-[81].

[4] Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) s 77(3)(h) ('QBCC Act'); Lyons v Dreamstarter Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 142.

[5] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 100, 102 ('QCAT Act').

[6] Beatton v Strongbridge Homes Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 184, [80].