Brici v Parry

Link copied
Case Copied 8 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Brici v Parry [2019] QCATA 134

PARTIES: ANGELA BRICI

(applicant)

v

SHARELLE PARRY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL159-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDQ11-19 (Richlands)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

27 August 2019

REASONS DELIVERED ON:

5 September 2019

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Acting Senior Member Browne

ORDERS:

The application for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal or appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – PROCEDURE – TIME, EXTENSION AND ABRIDGMENT – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where delay in filing the application for leave to appeal or appeal – whether discretion should be exercised to grant an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal or appeal – whether there is adequate explanation for delay

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 38
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 61, s 143

Harper Property Builders Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCATA 70

Pappas v Meikeljohn’s Accountants [2017] QCATA 60

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’).

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. Angela Brici filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal a decision of the Tribunal made in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction on 1 May 2019.

  2. Relevantly, the learned Adjudicator dismissed Ms Brici’s application for a consumer dispute seeking a refund of money spent on vitamin supplements and for compensation. Because the application for leave to appeal or appeal was filed outside the prescribed time of 28 days under s 143(4)(b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), Ms Brici applied for an extension of time to file the application.

  3. On 27 August 2019 I refused Ms Brici’s application to extend the time for filing the application for leave to appeal or appeal. Ms Brici requested reasons for my decision made that are now set out below.[1]

    [1]Decision dated 27 August 2019 and Appeal Tribunal Directions dated 5 July 2019.

The application to extend time

  1. Section 143(4)(b) of the QCAT Act provides that an appeal must be filed in the registry within 28 days after the relevant day. Here, the ‘relevant day’ as provided under s 143(5)(c) is the day the person is given written reasons for the decision being appealed against.[2]

    [2]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) s 143(5)(c).

  2. There is power under the QCAT Act to extend a time limit fixed for the start of a proceeding.[3] Although the power to extend time involves the exercise of a broad discretion, s 61(3) of the QCAT Act provides that the Tribunal cannot extend or shorten time if to do so would cause prejudice or detriment, not able to be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or damages, to a party or potential party…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brici v Parry 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
[2019] QCATA 134
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Brici v Parry involved an appeal concerning the granting of an extension of time for filing an application for leave to appeal. The appellant, Brici, sought an extension to file their application for leave to appeal a decision rendered by the trial judge in a minor civil dispute. The respondent, Parry, opposed the application on the grounds that there was no adequate explanation for the delay. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the discretion to grant an extension of time under the relevant procedural rules should be exercised in these circumstances. The court was required to consider the extent of the delay, the reasons provided for the delay, and whether there were any exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension. The court also had to determine if the delay had caused any prejudice to the respondent and whether the appellant had acted with due diligence.

The Supreme Court of Victoria, in its judgment, found that the appellant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. The court noted that there had been no evidence of exceptional circumstances that would justify the extension of time. Furthermore, the court observed that the delay had caused inconvenience and potential prejudice to the respondent, Parry. Given these considerations, the court decided not to exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time. Consequently, the application for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal or appeal was refused.

The court's decision was clear and concise, with the final order being that the application for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal or appeal was refused. This outcome underscores the importance of timely filings in legal proceedings and the court's reluctance to extend deadlines absent compelling justification.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal or appeal is 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.