| CITATION: | Breezeway Developments Pty Ltd v ADG Hydraulics Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 69 |
| PARTIES: | Breezeway Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant/appellant) |
| v | |
| ADG Hydraulics Pty Ltd (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: APL128 -10
| MATTER TYPE: |
HEARING DATE: On the papers
HEARD AT: Brisbane
| DECISION OF: | Justice Alan Wilson, President Susan Gardiner, Member |
DELIVERED ON: 11 November 2010
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE: Leave to appeal refused
| CATCHWORDS : | MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – DECISION IN ABSENCE OF PARTY – LEAVE TO APPEAL – where appellant filed response but failed to attend hearing due to error of its own – where applicant seeks leave to appeal decision – where applicant does not address usual test for leave – whether leave should be granted MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – REOPEN PROCEEDINGS – where adjudicator made decision against appellant in its absence – where appellant could have applied to reopen proceedings – whether reasonable excuse for non-attendance Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 3(b), 13(1), 28(3)(d), 50, 51, 61, 62(1), 93, 137, 138, s 142(3)(a)(i) Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] 239 CLR 175, cited |
REASONS FOR DECISION
President:
I have had the advantage of reading the decision of QCAT Member Ms Susan Gardiner in draft. I generally agree with her reasons, and her conclusion, and the order she proposes. I wish, however, to add some remarks concerning the applicant’s position had it chosen to apply to have the judgment against it set aside or the proceedings reopened rather than apply, as it has, for leave to appeal.
Strictly speaking the adjudicator’s decision here was not a ‘decision by default’ under Chapter 2, Part 5, Division 2 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act). In that Division, s 50 permits a decision by default for debt in circumstances were a respondent must respond to an application to recover a debt or liquidated demand of money, and fails to do so. Under s 51 that decision by default may be set aside, on application by the respondent, at the Tribunal’s discretion.
What occurred here, as the helpful reasons of the learned adjudicator of 22 June 2010 show, was that the respondent in the original proceedings (the applicant here, Breezeway Developments Pty Ltd) failed to attend for a mediation and the adjudicator, as she was entitled to do, proceeded to a hearing and decided the matter in the absence of the appellant – the procedure allowed under s 93 of the QCAT Act.
Under Chapter 2 Part 7 Division 7 of the QCAT Act a party who does not appear at a hearing but has a reasonable excuse for not attending may apply to the Tribunal for the proceeding to be reopened: ss 137, 138. That application has to be brought within twenty-eight days of the hearing. In this case the hearing occurred on 22 June 2010 and Breezeway Developments lodged its application for leave to appeal on 29 June 2010. Hence the applicant brought a proceeding well within that…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Breezeway Developments Pty Ltd v ADG Hydraulics Pty Ltd 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
- [2010] QCATA 69
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue the court needed to address was whether leave should be granted to the appellant to appeal the decision, despite the appellant's failure to attend the hearing. The court considered whether the appellant had provided sufficient reasons to justify the appeal and whether the usual criteria for granting leave to appeal had been met. The appellant did not address the usual test for leave to appeal, which further complicated the court's assessment.
The court reasoned that granting leave to appeal in this case would not be appropriate as the appellant did not meet the usual criteria for leave to appeal. Furthermore, the court noted that the appellant could have applied to reopen the proceedings if it had a reasonable excuse for its non-attendance, which it had not done. Consequently, the court decided that the appellant's request for leave to appeal should be refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal refused
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.