Gibson v Select Noosa Real Estate

Gibson was involved in proceedings before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) where he appeared on behalf of his parents. Select Noosa Real Estate applied for Gibson to be excluded from the proceedings due to repeated non-appearances and disruptive behaviour. The tribunal member revoked Gibson's leave to appear remotely, a decision Gibson sought to challenge. The primary legal issue was whether Gibson was afforded procedural fairness, particularly in light of the tribunal's comments that could potentially create an apprehension of bias. The court had to determine whether the tribunal's actions, including making an interlocutory decision in Gibson's absence, complied with the principles of procedural fairness. Additionally, the court needed to assess if there was substantial injustice that could be remedied by granting Gibson leave to appeal the interlocutory decision on the basis of bias.

The court found that the tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction and adhered to procedural fairness. It noted that the tribunal member had provided multiple opportunities for Gibson to address his non-appearance and disruptive conduct. The court held that the tribunal's comments did not demonstrate bias or create an apprehension of bias. Regarding the interlocutory decision, the court emphasised that such decisions are often made without the presence of parties and are not typically subject to appeal unless there is a substantial injustice. The tribunal concluded that there was no substantial injustice warranting an exercise of the leave to appeal discretion.

The tribunal ultimately dismissed Gibson's application, denying him leave to appeal the interlocutory decision and any other orders made by the tribunal. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and the limited grounds on which interlocutory decisions may be appealed. The tribunal's comments did not indicate bias, and the process followed was fair and appropriate. The tribunal's refusal of leave to appeal was upheld as there was no substantial injustice that could be remedied through an appeal.