Hall v Maccarone
[2014] QCATA 12
•21 January 2014
| CITATION: | Hall v Maccarone [2014] QCATA 012 |
| PARTIES: | Peter Hall (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| Alf Maccarone (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL498 -13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member Stilgoe OAM |
| DELIVERED ON: | 21 January 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application to extend or shorten a time limit or for waiver of compliance with a procedural requirement is refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where application filed more than 12 months after decision – where application to extend time – whether grounds to extend time Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
The appeal tribunal heard and determined this matter on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.
REASONS FOR DECISION
In July 2010, in mediation conducted by the tribunal, Messrs Hall and Maccarone agreed on how they would deal with a fencing dispute. It is extraordinary that a simple matter, on which the parties agreed, is before the tribunal over three years later.
On 19 November 2010, the tribunal made orders giving effect to the agreement. Those orders were clarified by order of 22 August 2011 and varied by order of 21 March 2012.
On 19 November 2013, Mr Hall filed an application for leave to appeal the decision of 21 March 2012. The appeal was filed out of time. Mr Hall therefore filed an application to extend time.
Mr Hall says he should have an extension of time because he made a complaint to the President and, on 9 April 2013, the President replied to that complaint.
Mr Hall points out that his first complaint was lost in the tribunal so it took about ten months for the President to respond. That does not account for the delay between the decision of 21 March 2012 and the complaint of 17 May 2012. It does not explain the delay between the President’s reply of 9 April 2013 and the filing of the application in November 2013.
Finality in litigation is highly desirable because any further action beyond the hearing can be costly and unnecessarily burdensome on the parties.[1] Mr Hall has given no good reason why the time for filing the application for leave to appeal should be extended. The application to extend time, and the application for leave to appeal, should be dismissed.
[1] See Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 128 per Gleeson CJ, Kirby and Gummow JJ.
0
2
0