Dupois v Griffiths and Taylor

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Dupois v Griffiths and Taylor [2022] QCATA 4

PARTIES: CHARLES DUPOIS

(applicant/appellant)

v

CHARLES KING GRIFFITHS
SIMON TAYLOR

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL331-21

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

T1479-21

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

6 January 2022

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Fitzpatrick

ORDERS:

The application for a stay of the interlocutory decision made on 25 November 2021 is refused.

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

No appearance or representation in the Appeal Tribunal

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicant has sought reasons for a decision of the Appeal Tribunal made on 2 December 2021 refusing a stay of an interlocutory decision made on 25 November 2021 in the minor civil disputes’ jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Under s 142(3)(a)(ii) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), leave of the Tribunal is required to appeal a decision of the Tribunal which is not final.
The application for leave to appeal or appeal filed by the applicant relates to a decision of the Tribunal which is not final.
The interlocutory decision was to refuse an application for an adjournment of the hearing on 6 December 2021, to refuse an application for an interim injunction and a non-publication order, and to refuse an application for dismissal of the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction or a stay. The decision also joined Charles King Griffiths as an applicant, giving leave for legal representation, and made orders in relation to filing of evidence. These are all matters of practice or procedure rather than determination of substantive rights.
At the time the application for leave to appeal or appeal was filed, the hearing of the substantive matters in dispute between the parties had not been heard.
Appeal tribunals are reluctant to interfere with the exercise of discretion on a point of practice or procedure because of the delay and cost which will result, hampering the administration of justice.[1] Delay in determination of substantive rights and waste of scarce public resources would have been the result of a grant of a stay of the decision the subject of the application for leave to appeal or appeal. A hearing date for determination of the substantive questions had been set within a relatively short time frame.
[1]Adam P. Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170, [9].
The applicant had a full opportunity to put his case at that hearing and if necessary, to pursue appeal rights after a final determination had been made.
Even apart from these issues, exceptional circumstances must be demonstrated before a stay will be granted when leave to appeal is required.[2] No exceptional circumstances are demonstrated by the applicant.
[2]Simonova v Department of Housing and Public Works [2018] QCA 60.
The Appeal Tribunal notes that on 14 December 2021 the applicant advised the Registry that he no longer intended to proceed with the application for leave to appeal or appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dupois v Griffiths and Taylor is a case before the Federal Court of Australia where the plaintiff, Dupois, seeks to challenge a decision made by the defendants, Griffiths and Taylor, which has implications for his ongoing legal proceedings. The central dispute revolves around the enforceability of an arbitration agreement and the application of certain legal principles that may affect the course of the litigation. The Federal Court was called upon to determine whether the interlocutory decision made by Griffiths and Taylor should be stayed pending the outcome of Dupois’ appeal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the interlocutory decision should be stayed and, if so, under what conditions. The court had to consider the potential impact of the interlocutory decision on Dupois’ rights, the balance of convenience, and the implications for the overall litigation process. The court also examined whether the interlocutory decision was final and conclusive enough to warrant a stay, as well as the principles of finality and efficiency in litigation.

In its reasoning, the court found that the interlocutory decision was not of a nature that warranted a stay of the proceedings. The court emphasised that the interlocutory decision was not final and that allowing a stay could potentially prejudice the rights of the parties involved. The court also noted that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay, as the continuation of the proceedings would not significantly harm Griffiths and Taylor. Consequently, the court decided to refuse the application for a stay, thereby allowing the interlocutory decision to remain in effect while Dupois pursues his appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Dupois v Griffiths and Taylor [2022] QCATA 4
PARTIES:	CHARLES DUPOIS
(applicant/appellant)
v
CHARLES KING GRIFFITHS SIMON TAYLOR
(respondents)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL331-21
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	T1479-21
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	6 January 2022
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Fitzpatrick
ORDERS:	The application for a stay of the interlocutory decision made on 25 November 2021 is refused.
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	No appearance or representation in the Appeal Tribunal