Cui v Queensland Police Service - [2025] QCATA 62

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Cui v Queensland Police Service [2025] QCATA 62

PARTIES:

PULIN CUI

(applicant/appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL044-24

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO:

GAR781-23

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

2 July 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Fitzpatrick

Member Chapple

ORDERS:

1. The application for leave to appeal is refused.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – FROM INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONS – LEAVE TO APPEAL – where decision made to revoke firearms licence – where application to review the revocation decision and an application for an extension of time to file the application for review out of time – where application for an extension of time to file the application for review refused – where application for leave to appeal – whether grounds for leave to appeal – whether leave to appeal should be granted

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, 61, s 142

Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170

Adeva Home Solutions Pty Ltd v Queensland Motorways Management Pty Ltd [2021] QCA 198
Australian Anti Ice Campaign Pty Ltd v Alcohol and Drug Foundation Incorporated [2024] QCA 161
Brilliant Digital Entertainment Pty Ltd v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 270
Coppens v Water Wise Design Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 309
Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor [2011] QCAT 229
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Rintoul v State of Queensland & Ors [2018] QCA 20

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

Applicant/appellant:

M L Longhurst, instructed by TWC Lawyers

Respondent:

M D Nicolson

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 31 July 2023, the Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing (‘the QPS’) decided to revoke Mr Cui’s firearms licence.
On 30 October 2023, Mr Cui filed an application to review the revocation decision and an application for an extension of time to file the application for review out of time.
Under s 61 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld) (‘the QCAT Act’) – Relief from procedural requirements – sub-ss (1) and (3) provide that the Tribunal may extend or shorten time limits or waive compliance with another procedural requirement under the QCAT Act unless to do so would cause prejudice or detriment not able to be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or damages. We consider that this discretionary power conferred on the Tribunal includes a power to extend time for the filing of an application to review a decision to revoke a firearms licence.
On 16 January 2024 a Member of the Tribunal made a decision, after a hearing on the papers, to dismiss Mr Cui’s application to extend time and to dismiss Mr Cui’s…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cui v Queensland Police Service and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QCATA 62
Decision Date: 2 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Cui, appealed against the decision of the first respondent, a judge of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), who dismissed an application for review of a decision by the second respondent, the Queensland Police Service, to revoke the appellant's firearms licence. The appellant sought leave to appeal from the decision of the QCAT judge dismissing the application for review and the decision of the QCAT judge refusing an application for an extension of time to file the application for review. The primary issue before the court was whether the QCAT judge erred in dismissing the application for review and refusing the application for an extension of time. A secondary issue was whether the grounds of appeal disclosed a substantial injustice or some other compelling reason to grant leave to appeal.

The court found that the QCAT judge did not err in dismissing the application for review as the appellant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness that attached to the second respondent's decision to revoke the firearms licence. The court also found that the QCAT judge did not err in refusing the application for an extension of time as the appellant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application for review. The court found that the grounds of appeal did not disclose a substantial injustice or some other compelling reason to grant leave to appeal. The court held that the appeal should be dismissed and the application for leave to appeal should be refused.

The court ordered that the application for leave to appeal be refused and that the appeal be dismissed. The court further ordered that the appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal is refused.

2. The 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.