Giles v Chief Executive, Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries

[2010] QCAT 129

CITATION: Giles v Chief Executive, Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries [2010] QCAT 129

PARTIES:   Anthony Giles

v

Chief Executive, Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries

APPLICATION NUMBER:            FHR006-09

MATTER TYPE:   General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:   Decision on the papers

HEARD AT:   Brisbane

DECISION OF:   Peta Stilgoe

DELIVERED ON:   12 February 2010

DELIVERED AT:   Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:   Application for attendance by remote conferencing dismissed

CATCHWORDS:  compulsory conference, appearance by remote conferencing

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

Decision on the papers

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]The Chief Executive, Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries (“the Department”) has applied for leave to attend a compulsory conference at Hervey Bay on 19 February 2010 by remote conferencing. The application was received on 9 February 2010. The Department says that the relevant officers have very full schedules that would make personal attendance very difficult. The officer in question, Ms Moore, is required to “attend several forums and presentations that cannot be re-scheduled”.

[2]On 18 December 2009, Justice Alan Wilson ordered this proceeding be set down for compulsory conference. The file shows that the Department was represented before the tribunal on this date. The Department has known for some time that its presence was required in Hervey Bay on 19 February 2010.

[3]The application for leave to appear by remote conferencing seems to assume that, while forums and presentations cannot be re-scheduled, a tribunal-ordered conference can be conducted, or re-scheduled, to meet the Department’s convenience. I also note that the Department has not yet filed its material, although that was required by 29 January 2010. Perhaps the Department has assumed that it is not required to comply with timetables directed by this tribunal. Those assumptions, if they have been made, are not correct and ignore the objects of the tribunal clearly set out in section 3 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act.

[4]I do not give leave for the Department’s attendance at the compulsory conference by remote conferencing. I am not minded to adjourn or vacate the conference.

[5]I note that an application for legal representation has been refused. If personal attendance by a legally qualified person will facilitate the Department’s attendance at the conference, I will re-consider an application to that effect.