Reihana v QCAT Client Services Manager

[2017] QCA 117

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Equity
2. › Equitable remedies
3. › Whether categories of equity extend to compensation for self-represented litigant's time
4. › Whether equitable maxim that equity is equality supports new right of action
5. › No equitable jurisdiction to award such compensation
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Self-represented litigants
4. › Whether self-represented litigant entitled to compensation for time spent preparing case
5. › Distinction between costs under rules of court and claimed equitable entitlement
6. › Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), s 64
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals
3. › Competency of appeal
4. › Whether appeal only in relation to costs requiring leave
5. › Whether claim based on general law rather than costs rules avoids leave requirement
6. › Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), s 64

Quick Take

There is no equitable jurisdiction to award compensation to a self-represented litigant for the time spent preparing and prosecuting a successful case. A claim for such compensation framed as an equitable entitlement rather than as costs under the UCPR is not an appeal 'only in relation to costs' for the purposes of s 64 of the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), and therefore does not require leave to appeal.