Background
Jordan Jamie Huang challenged the reasonableness of a resolution passed at the respondent body corporate’s annual general meeting in March 2022. An adjudicator dismissed his application, and the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal dismissed his appeal. His subsequent appeal to the Queensland Court of Appeal was dismissed on 7 August 2026 in Huang v Body Corporate for the Dorchester CTS 10749 [2026] QCA 147.
The Attorney-General of Queensland and the Queensland Human Rights Commission intervened in that appeal to address how the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) applied to an adjudicator dealing with a dispute under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld). Neither intervener sought a costs order. The body corporate sought its costs, while Huang argued for no costs order or, alternatively, an award limited to 30% of its standard costs.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously ordered Huang to pay the body corporate’s costs of the appeal. Bradley JA gave the reasons, with Bond JA and Brown JA agreeing.
The Court rejected Huang’s arguments for departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event. Although the body corporate did not persist with one contention and the Court accepted some of Huang’s contentions, those matters did not change the result: the body corporate succeeded and the appeal was dismissed.
The Court also rejected Huang’s contention that the body corporate’s participation made no difference because it adopted submissions made by the Attorney-General. The body corporate was a necessary party, and adopting the Attorney-General’s submissions on the Human Rights Act avoided unnecessary or duplicative costs.
Key Takeaways
- A successful respondent was awarded its appeal costs despite the Court accepting some of the unsuccessful appellant’s contentions.
- Abandoning one contention did not justify reducing or denying costs where it did not affect the appeal’s outcome.
- A party’s adoption of an intervener’s submissions may avoid duplication rather than render that party’s participation unnecessary.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that the overall result ordinarily controls costs. Success on discrete arguments will not necessarily displace the usual costs order when the party still loses the appeal.
It also shows that, where interveners address statutory issues under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), a necessary party may efficiently adopt their submissions without forfeiting an entitlement to costs.