Critchley v Isabel - [2021] QCATA 23

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Critchley v Isabel [2021] QCATA 23

PARTIES:

MATTHEW CRITCHLEY
(appellant)

v

PALOMA ISABEL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL012-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT2547/19

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

10 February 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Hughes

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to appeal granted.

2.   Appeal allowed.

3.   The Order made on 9 January 2020 is set aside.

4.   The proceedings are remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for rehearing.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – leave to appeal – where settlement negotiations conducted during hearing – where parties not given procedural fairness – where error of law for which leave should be granted to correct substantial injustice

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 28, s 146

Baldwin v Von Knorring [2015] QCATA 107
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Appellants:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION
What is this appeal about?

Alternative dispute resolution is one of the Tribunal’s core functions. It facilitates the Tribunal’s mandate to conduct proceedings in an informal way that minimises costs to parties and is as quick as is consistent with achieving justice.[1]
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 4(c) (‘QCAT Act’).
It would appear that this was precisely what the Tribunal below was trying to achieve when it used the original hearing to conduct settlement negotiations to resolve this application to terminate a tenancy for excessive hardship. However, the conduct of settlement negotiations in proceedings can be a delicate exercise:
There are some occasions when on the day of the hearing it is appropriate for the presiding Member to offer the parties the opportunity to resolve the dispute before the proceeding commences. However it is not appropriate to carry out those negotiations with the parties on the record and then proceed with the hearing. The parties should leave the hearing room to conduct those discussions. Alternatively another member (if available) could chair a compulsory conference.
If the member allocated to conduct the hearing conducts a conference they should only do so off the record and after explaining to the parties that in all likelihood they will not be able to continue the hearing if the matter does not resolve.
[An] indication by the learned Member as to the likely outcome before and after the hearing commenced, and the conducting of settlement negotiations during the giving of evidence [can mean] that the parties were in all likelihood confused about the process which meant they were not given a satisfactory opportunity to present their case.[2]
[2]Baldwin v Von Knorring [2015] QCATA 107, [40] - [42].
Although the Tribunal’s intention for the parties to resolve their dispute may have been within its purview, on this occasion its…

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 Critchley v Isabel

Details

AGLC: Critchley v Isabel [2021] QCATA 23
Case: [2021] QCATA 23
Decision Date: 10 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved the parties Critchley and Isabel, centering on an issue that arose during the course of a hearing where settlement negotiations were conducted. The dispute was heard in the relevant tribunal, which had made an order on 9 January 2020. The appellant, Critchley, sought leave to appeal this decision, arguing that the tribunal's process did not afford procedural fairness and resulted in a substantial injustice.

The court was required to determine whether the tribunal's handling of the settlement negotiations and its failure to provide procedural fairness constituted an error of law. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether this error warranted the granting of leave to appeal and, if so, whether the appeal should be allowed to correct the substantial injustice identified.

The court found that the tribunal's conduct during the settlement negotiations was indeed an error of law. This was because the tribunal did not provide the parties with procedural fairness, which is a fundamental requirement in legal proceedings. The court considered that this procedural error led to a substantial injustice, as it deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the tribunal's order. The court remitted the proceedings to a differently constituted tribunal for rehearing to ensure that procedural fairness is observed.

The final orders of the court included granting leave to appeal, allowing the appeal, setting aside the January 2020 order, and remitting the proceedings to a differently constituted tribunal for rehearing. This decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness in legal proceedings and the court's commitment to correcting substantial injustices that may arise from procedural errors.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. The Order made on 9 January 2020 is set aside.

4. The proceedings are remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for rehearing.

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:	Critchley v Isabel [2021] QCATA 23
PARTIES:	MATTHEW CRITCHLEY (appellant)
v
PALOMA ISABEL (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL012-20
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	MCDT2547/19
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	10 February 2021
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Hughes
ORDERS:	1. Leave to appeal granted. 2. Appeal allowed. 3. The Order made on 9 January 2020 is set aside. 4. The proceedings are remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for rehearing.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – leave to appeal – where settlement negotiations conducted during hearing – where parties not given procedural fairness – where error of law for which leave should be granted to correct substantial injustice Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 28, s 146 Baldwin v Von Knorring [2015] QCATA 107 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Appellants:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented