QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Bull v Porteus [2018] QCATA 100
PARTIES:
KENNETH JAMES BULL
(appellant)v PORTEUS
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
APL342-17
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:
MCDO1639-17 (Brisbane)
MATTER TYPE:
Appeals
DELIVERED ON:
5 July 2018
HEARING DATE:
4 July 2018
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Dr J R Forbes, Member
ORDERS:
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – application for leave to appeal – Minor Civil Dispute – proceedings under the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld) – failure to commence proceedings within time limited by statute – whether the tribunal has power to extend time – whether the statutory time limit is substantive or procedural – time limit substantive – no power to extend – whether in the absence of jurisdiction consent orders may be made – inability of parties to confer jurisdiction by consent – application for leave to appeal dismissed
Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld), s 31, s 35
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 32, s 61Anthony Hordern & Sons Ltd v Amalgamated Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia (1932) 47 CLR 1
Aramac Constructions Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2015] QCAT 364
Australian Education Union v Lawler (2008) 169 FCR 327; [2008] FCAFC 135
David Grant & Co Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation & Ors (1995) 184 CLR 265
Hope & Anor v Brisbane City Council [2013] QCA 198
McKain v RW Miller & Co (SA) Pty Ltd (1991) 174
CLR 1
Neill v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2011] WASCA 48
Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Watkins [2014] QCA 172
R v Moore; Ex parte Australian Workers’ Union (1976) 11 ALR 449
Watkins v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 535REPRESENTATION:
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).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The applicant, Kenneth James Bull seeks leave to appeal from the primary decision of an adjudicator, delivered on 27 September 2017.
The applicant then sought a fencing order against the respondent Porteus, under the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (‘the fencing Act’).
Section 31 of the fencing Act relevantly provides:
Notice to contribute for fencing work
(1) An owner may require the adjoining owner to contribute … to the carrying out of fencing work for a dividing fence by giving a notice to the adjoining owner.
(2) The notice must be in the approved form and state the following—
(a)a description of the land on which the fencing work is proposed to be carried out and, if the fencing work is to construct or replace a dividing fence, the line on which it is proposed to construct or replace the fence;
(b)the type of fencing work proposed to be carried out;
(c)the estimated…
Continue reading Bull v Porteus
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bull v Porteus [2018] QCATA 100
- Case
- [2018] QCATA 100
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issue before the court was whether the time limit for commencing proceedings under the Act was substantive or procedural. If the time limit was procedural, the court could have the power to extend it. Conversely, if the time limit was substantive, the court lacked the authority to extend it. The court also considered whether, in the absence of jurisdiction, consent orders could be made to allow the proceedings to proceed. This raised the question of whether the parties could confer jurisdiction by consent.
The court held that the time limit was substantive and, therefore, the tribunal did not have the power to extend it. The court further determined that the inability of the parties to confer jurisdiction by consent meant that consent orders could not be made. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court found that the statutory time limit was a fundamental aspect of the statutory scheme and could not be altered or extended by the court. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory time limits in civil proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
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.