Beyond Reserve Pty Ltd v Kagawa - [2024] QCATA 98

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Beyond Reserve Pty Ltd v Kagawa [2024] QCATA 98

PARTIES:

BEYOND RESERVE PTY LTD AND MEK PROPERTY SERVICES PTY LTD

(applicants/appellants)

v

CHIHO KAGAWA

(first respondent)

And

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL105-23

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR033-23

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

7 November 2024

HEARING DATE:

16 October 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC

ORDERS:

1.     Leave to appeal.

2.     Leave to rely on additional evidence, namely the affidavit of Maia filed 3 July 2023.

3.     Appeal dismissed.

4.     If any party wants to apply for an order for costs of the appeal, that party must file submissions in writing in support of the order sought, and give a copy of them by email to each of the associate to the Deputy President of the Tribunal and each other party, within 14 days from the date of this decision.

5.     If no such submissions are filed, there will be no order as to costs of the appeal.

6.     If such submissions are filed, the party from whom costs are sought may file any submissions in writing in opposition to such an order, and give a copy of them to by email to each of the associate to the Deputy President and each other party, within 14 days of the receipt of such submissions.

7.     If submissions as to costs are filed, the question of costs will be decided by the Appeal Tribunal without an oral hearing, under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32.

8.     Liberty to apply as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – Procedure – application to review reviewable decision – how and when made – whether requirement of Rules incorporated into provision of Act – whether time extended under Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 38(2) – whether jurisdiction to review validly invoked

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 38(2)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 33

Bowie v Gela [2023] QCATA 129
Brennan v QBCC [2024] QCAT 37
Campaigntrack Victoria Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2016] QCA 37
CPR Solutions Mackay Pty Ltd v Zammit Earthmoving Pty Ltd (2020) 4 QR 624
CQ Sheds and Concrete Pty Ltd v QBCC [2023] QCAT 487
Gower v Woodman Sales Pty Ltd [1988] 2 Qd R 15
Irwin Homes Pty Ltd v Invest Now Australia Pty Ltd [2018] 3 Qd R 603
Magic Mountain Developments Pty Ltd v Laureate Australia Pty Ltd [1991] 2 Qd R 570
Perryman v Commissioner of State Revenue [2016] QCAT 26
QBCC v Watkins [2014] QCA 172
State of Queensland v Ali [2014] QCATA 14
Sunup Solar Pty Ltd v QBCC [2015] QCAT 435
Syed v Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General – Office of Fair Trading [2022] QCAT 11
Vignes v Clarke [1990] 2 Qd R 593

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Beyond Reserve Pty Ltd v Kagawa 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] QCATA 98
Decision Date: 7 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Beyond Reserve Pty Ltd filed an appeal against a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction to review a reviewable decision. The crux of the dispute was whether the Tribunal had correctly applied the procedural rules when reviewing a decision made by an administrative body. Specifically, the appellant questioned whether certain time limits set out in the Tribunal's rules were incorporated into the statutory provisions and whether these limits were extended by the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 38(2). The appellant also contended that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review the decision because of a failure to comply with procedural requirements.

The court examined the nature and scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction to review administrative decisions. It considered whether the Tribunal's rules were properly incorporated into the statutory framework and whether the statutory time limits could be extended by the Acts Interpretation Act. The court also assessed whether the Tribunal had correctly exercised its discretion in deciding the appeal and whether any procedural errors rendered the decision invalid. Additionally, the court addressed the appellant's request for leave to rely on additional evidence, specifically an affidavit filed after the appeal was lodged.

The court concluded that the Tribunal's rules were indeed incorporated into the statutory provisions and that the statutory time limits were not extended by the Acts Interpretation Act. The Tribunal had correctly exercised its discretion in reviewing the decision and had not erred in its procedural handling of the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the court denied leave to rely on the additional evidence. The court also set out detailed procedures for any future applications regarding the costs of the appeal, specifying that any such applications would be decided without an oral hearing if submissions were filed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal.

2. Leave to rely on additional evidence, namely the affidavit of Maia filed 3 July 2023.

3. Appeal dismissed.

4. If any party wants to apply for an order for costs of the appeal, that party must file submissions in writing in support of the order sought, and give a copy of them by email to each of the associate to the Deputy President of the Tribunal and each other party, within 14 days from the date of this decision.

5. If no such submissions are filed, there will be no order as to costs of the appeal.

6. If such submissions are filed, the party from whom costs are sought may file any submissions in writing in opposition to such an order, and give a copy of them to by email to each of the associate to the Deputy President and each other party, within 14 days of the receipt of such submissions.

7. If submissions as to costs are filed, the question of costs will be decided by the Appeal Tribunal without an oral hearing, under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32.

8. Liberty to apply as to costs.

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.