Bruce v Ridgway - [2020] QCATA 95

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Bruce v Ridgway [2020] QCATA 95

PARTIES:

NIGEL BRUCE

(appellant)

v

JOHN RIDGWAY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL165-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO60969/18

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

1 June 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Hughes

ORDERS:

1. Nigel Bruce is taken to have made an application for the proceeding to be reopened under section 138 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

2. Nigel Bruce is taken not to have made an application or appeal under section 143 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

3.   Nigel Bruce must file with the Tribunal two (2) copies and give to John Ridgway one (1) copy of his submissions and evidence to support the application for the proceeding to be reopened by 4.00pm on 16 June 2020.

4.   John Ridgway must file with the Tribunal two (2) copies and give to Nigel Bruce one (1) copy of his submissions and evidence in reply by 4.00pm by 30 June 2020.

5.   The matter is referred to the Tribunal to decide whether the proceeding should be reopened not before 1 July 2020.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where appellant did not attend original hearing – where appellant did not raise any error but was effectively seeking reopening on grounds that he had reasonable excuse for not attending – where Appeal Tribunal may refer matter to Tribunal to decide whether proceeding should be reopened – whether reopening ground – whether reasonable excuse for not attending hearing

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 4, s 28, s 138, s 143A, Schedule 3

Aon Risk Services Aust Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Breezeway Developments Pty Ltd v ADG Hydraulics Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 69
Creek v Raine & Horne Mossman [2011] QCATA 226
Harris v Foxworth Pty Ltd [2013] QCATA 133
Rayner & Anor v Trabme Pty Ltd t/as Elders Redcliffe [2013] QCATA 212
Ren v Poolworld Pty Ltd [2011] QCAT 706

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondents:

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).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Nigel Bruce did not attend the hearing to respond to John Ridgway’s Application for minor civil dispute – minor debt on 13 June 2019. In Mr Bruce’s absence, the learned Adjudicator ordered him to pay Mr Ridgway the sum of $11,857.96 by 23 June 2019.
Mr Bruce has appealed that decision. However, he does not raise any error by the learned Adjudicator. Rather, he is effectively seeking a reopening on the grounds that he had a reasonable excuse for not attending: that he needed to support a family friend whose son was undergoing a medical procedure and that he was unsure whether Mr Ridgway would attend. Mr Ridgway did attend the hearing, although he did not attend an earlier mediation.
In his…

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.

Continue reading Bruce v Ridgway

Details

AGLC: Bruce v Ridgway [2020] QCATA 95
Case: [2020] QCATA 95
Decision Date: 1 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bruce v Ridgway, the appellant, Nigel Bruce, sought to appeal the decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) without attending the original hearing. The dispute involved an application for the reopening of a proceeding, with Bruce arguing he had a reasonable excuse for not attending the original hearing. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeal Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the matter should be reopened based on the grounds presented by Bruce.

The central legal issue before the Appeal Tribunal was whether Bruce's absence from the original hearing constituted a reasonable excuse, warranting the reopening of the proceeding. Additionally, the Tribunal needed to decide if it had the authority to refer the matter back to QCAT to determine whether the proceeding should indeed be reopened.

The Appeal Tribunal found that Bruce had not formally applied for the proceeding to be reopened under section 138 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), but rather was seeking to reopen the matter on the basis of a reasonable excuse for his non-attendance. The Tribunal determined that it had the discretion to refer the matter back to QCAT to assess whether the proceeding should be reopened. Consequently, the Appeal Tribunal referred the matter back to QCAT for determination, setting specific deadlines for Bruce and the respondent, John Ridgway, to file their respective submissions and evidence.

The final orders mandated that Bruce file his submissions and evidence to support his application for reopening by 4.00pm on 16 June 2020, with two copies to be submitted to the Tribunal and one copy to Ridgway. Ridgway was required to file his submissions and evidence in reply by 4.00pm on 30 June 2020, with the same filing protocol. The matter was to be referred back to QCAT to decide whether the proceeding should be reopened, with the decision not to be made before 1 July 2020.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Nigel Bruce is taken to have made an application for the proceeding to be reopened under section 138 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

2. Nigel Bruce is taken not to have made an application or appeal under section 143 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

3. Nigel Bruce must file with the Tribunal two (2) copies and give to John Ridgway one (1) copy of his submissions and evidence to support the application for the proceeding to be reopened by 4.00pm on 16 June 2020.

4. John Ridgway must file with the Tribunal two (2) copies and give to Nigel Bruce one (1) copy of his submissions and evidence in reply by 4.00pm by 30 June 2020.

5. The matter is referred to the Tribunal to decide whether the proceeding should be reopened not before 1 July 2020.

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.

CITATION:	Bruce v Ridgway [2020] QCATA 95
PARTIES:	NIGEL BRUCE (appellant)
v
JOHN RIDGWAY (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL165-19
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	MCDO60969/18
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	1 June 2020
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Hughes
ORDERS:	1. Nigel Bruce is taken to have made an application for the proceeding to be reopened under section 138 of the *Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act* 2009 (Qld). 2. Nigel Bruce is taken not to have made an application or appeal under section 143 of the *Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act* 2009 (Qld). 3. Nigel Bruce must file with the Tribunal two (2) copies and give to John Ridgway one (1) copy of his submissions and evidence to support the application for the proceeding to be reopened by 4.00pm on 16 June 2020. 4. John Ridgway must file with the Tribunal two (2) copies and give to Nigel Bruce one (1) copy of his submissions and evidence in reply by 4.00pm by 30 June 2020. 5. The matter is referred to the Tribunal to decide whether the proceeding should be reopened not before 1 July 2020.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where appellant did not attend original hearing – where appellant did not raise any error but was effectively seeking reopening on grounds that he had reasonable excuse for not attending – where Appeal Tribunal may refer matter to Tribunal to decide whether proceeding should be reopened – whether reopening ground – whether reasonable excuse for not attending hearing Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 4, s 28, s 138, s 143A, Schedule 3 Aon Risk Services Aust Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Breezeway Developments Pty Ltd v ADG Hydraulics Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 69 Creek v Raine & Horne Mossman [2011] QCATA 226 Harris v Foxworth Pty Ltd [2013] QCATA 133 Rayner & Anor v Trabme Pty Ltd t/as Elders Redcliffe [2013] QCATA 212 Ren v Poolworld Pty Ltd [2011] QCAT 706
REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondents:	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).