CoActive Management Pty Ltd v National E-Health Transition Authority Limited (No 2)

[2012] QCAT 691

CITATION: CoActive Management Pty Ltd v National E-Health Transition Authority Limited (No 2) [2012] QCAT 691

PARTIES:	CoActive Management Pty Ltd ATF CoActive Trust
v
National E-Health Transition Authority Limited

APPLICATION NUMBER: MCDO2143-12

MATTER TYPE: Other civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 4 September 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:     1.    Application for legal representation through an Australian Legal Practitioner pursuant to rule 54 for the respondent is granted.

CATCHWORDS:

LEGAL REPRESENTATION – where respondent is a government owned corporation – whether complex questions of law and fact – whether interest of justice require leave for legal representation

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 3(c), 28(3), 29, 43

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. CoActive Management Pty Ltd ATF CoActive Trust entered into a contract with National E-Health Transition Authority Limited to provide services.  National E-Health was incorporated to implement the introduction of e-health throughout Australia.  The members of the company are the Federal Government and the governments of each State and Territory.

2. The agreement is at an end.  CoActive has filed a minor debt claim for $25,000, the maximum amount recoverable in the tribunal’s minor civil dispute jurisdiction.  National E-Health has applied for leave to be legally represented in the proceedings.

3. The tribunal may grant leave for legal representation if it is in the interests of justice to do so[1].  In deciding whether to grant leave, the tribunal may consider: whether the party is a State agency; whether the proceeding is likely to involve complex questions of fact or law; whether another party is represented and whether the parties consent to legal representation[2].

   [1]        Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 43.

   [2] Section 43(3).

4. CoActive does not consent to National E-Health having leave for legal representation.  It says that it would be unjust for a large company, which is subsidised by public money, to engage lawyers to act against an individual in the tribunal.  CoActive’s alter ego and director, Ms Condon, says that she can’t afford legal representation.  She says it would be unfair to have anyone with a legal background represent National E-Health, particularly when the responsible officer has had all the documents relating to this dispute for over twelve months.

5. The tribunal has an obligation to deal with matters in a way that is fair[3].  It must observe the rules of natural justice[4].  It must take all reasonable steps to ensure that each party to a proceeding understands the practices and procedures of the tribunal and the nature of the assertions made against that party[5].  The members and adjudicators of the tribunal are experienced in conducting hearings in a way that meets the tribunal’s obligations, even when there is a difference in skill and knowledge between the parties.  I am confident that Ms Condon’s fears will not be realised.

   [3] Section 3(c).

   [4] Section 28(3)(a).

   [5] Section 29.

6. National E-Health, being owned by the governments of Australia, is akin to a State agency.  The documents already filed by the parties indicate that there will be some complexity of fact and law.  It is appropriate that National E-Health be legally represented in these proceedings.