Cls v Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages

[2012] QCAT 420

CITATION: CLS v Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages [2012] QCAT 420

PARTIES:	CLS (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages  (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: GAR160-12

MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Michelle Howard, Acting Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 29 August 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the application.

CATCHWORDS: JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL – where application for registration of parentage details – where application refused

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. CLS applied to the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages for amendment of his birth registration to include his father’s details. The Registrar’s delegate made a decision not to include the details of the alleged father who is now deceased. The decision was made under section 10 of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 (the Act).

2. As I understand it, the Registrar submits that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decision to refuse to amend the parentage details. It appears that the Registrar’s argument is essentially that the details could only be included if the requirements of section 10 had been satisfied. The Registrar says those requirements have not been satisfied as a declaration under the Status of Children’s Act 1978 has not been made, which would entitle the Registrar to presume the alleged father is a parent of CLS.

3. CLS says the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Registrar’s decision under 49 of the Act. Section 49 of the Act provides that a person who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Registrar may apply to QCAT for a review of the decision.

Discussion and Decision

1. The only question for me at this stage, is whether the review application is properly before the Tribunal.

2. The Registrar’s submissions go to the merits of the application rather than whether the decision is reviewable by the Tribunal. If the application is properly brought before the Tribunal, whether or not CLS can succeed at hearing will be a matter for determination at the review hearing.  The purpose of a review is to produce the correct and preferable decision. [1] The Tribunal must, of course, in conducting a review, apply the legislation. It is not for me to determine at this stage whether the requirements of section 10 have been met.

   [1] QCAT Act s 20.

3. The Registrar does not suggest that the determination which CLS seeks to review is not a ‘decision’ within the ambit of section 49 of the Act. CLS was advised that the Registrar had made a decision not to include the parentage details on his application. CLS has applied for a review of the decision. Section 49 does not limit the right of review to particular decisions. It provides that any person who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Registrar may review it.

4. In my view, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the application.

5. I make orders accordingly.