Grunske v Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

[2013] QCAT 441

CITATION: Grunske v Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry [2013] QCAT 441

PARTIES:	Mark Grunske (Applicant)
V
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: GAR122-13

PARTIES:	Top Catch on the Fringe (Applicant)
V
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: GAR126-13

MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: K O’Callaghan, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 17 July 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.     The Departments application to attend the compulsory conference by remote conferencing is refused.

CATCHWORDS: Procedure – application to attend compulsory conference by remote conferencing – where application refused.

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. These applications are for a review of a decision of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry with respect to the respective applicants fishing permits.

2. The applications were listed for a compulsory conference in Hervey Bay to be held on 23 July 2013. 

3. All parties applied for leave to be represented in the proceedings and for leave to attend the compulsory conference by remote conferencing.  The Department is based in Brisbane.  The applicants were going to be legally represented at the compulsory conference.  The applicants themselves sought leave to attend the conference on telephone as they lived away from Hervey Bay and did not have a means to travel to attend the compulsory conference.

4. The Department also applied to attend the conference by remote conferencing.  They advised that both the representative from the Department and their legal representative lived in Brisbane and because of the time it would take to drive to Hervey Bay they would need to stay overnight in Hervey Bay in order to attend the conference.

5. The Department’s application for both the representative and the legal representative to attend on the phone was refused.  The applicants application to attend on the telephone was granted on the basis that their legal representative was to attend in person.

6. The Department has sought reasons for my decision to refuse their application to attend by remote conferencing. 

7. The purpose of a compulsory conference set out in the QCAT Act[1] are to:

   (a)Identify and clarify the issues in the dispute in the proceeding;

   (b)To promote settlement of the dispute the subject of a proceeding;

   (c)To identify the questions of fact and law to be decided by the Tribunal;

   (d)If the proceeding is not settled, to make orders and give directions about the conduct of a proceeding;

   (e)To make orders and give directions the person presiding over the conference considers appropriate to resolve the dispute the subject of the proceeding.

   [1]        Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 69.

8. These outcomes are more likely to be achieved and as such the conference more effective if both parties are present in person.

9. The Department has an obligation to conduct the proceedings in accordance model litigant principles.  These include a principle that when participating in alternative dispute resolution, the state must ensure that its representatives participate fully and effectively.[2]

   [2]        Queensland Government Model Litigant Principals – Revision 4 October 2010.

10. The solicitor representing the applicants was going to attend the conference in person.  It may have been that if the Department had requested that either the legal representative or the Department representative attend by remote conferencing and the other attend in person that such an application would have been successful.  They did however request that both parties attend by remote conferencing.  In the exercise of my discretion I determined that it was desirable that the respondent attend the conference in person and I ordered accordingly.

11. It is noted that the conference that was held had a positive outcome in that the directions arising from the conference indicate a possibility that the applications will not proceed.