Hawthorne Hot Bread & Cakes v Brisbane City Council (No 2)

[2012] QCAT 348

CITATION: Hawthorne Hot Bread & Cakes v Brisbane City Council (No 2) [2012] QCAT 348

PARTIES:	Hawthorne Hot Bread & Cakes
v
Brisbane City Council (Environmental Health Team, Compliance & Regulatory Services)

APPLICATION NUMBER: GAR275-12

MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: K O'Callaghan, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 6 August 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Pursuant to s 58(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 the decision of the Brisbane City Council to cancel the applicant’s food license is stayed pending the determination of the application to stay the decision.

2.     Brisbane City Council will file in the Tribunal one copy and give to Hawthorne Hot Bread and Cakes any further submissions in response to the stay application by 4:00pm on 9 August 2012.

3.     The application for a stay will be determined on the papers, by written submissions from the parties, and without an oral hearing.

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. The Brisbane City Council cancelled the food license of Hawthorne Hot Bread & Cake Shop owned by Thanh Nguyen and Hoa Vu.  Nguyen and Vu have asked the Tribunal to review that decision and in the meantime to stay the decision.

2. They have also asked for an interim order staying the decision until the stay application can be determined.

3. The Tribunal has the power to make such an interim order if it is appropriate to protect the parties’ position for the duration of the proceeding or to secure the effectiveness of the exercise of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in the proceeding.[1]

   [1] Section 58 of the QCAT Act.

4. The Council opposes the interim order.

5. Nguyen and Vu are currently operating the business under a previous interim order issued by the Tribunal.

6. They have submitted that they will suffer severe financial hardship if they are required to close the shop pending the determination of the stay.

7. Whilst there have been a number of breaches of standards in the past at the latest recent inspection the premises were found to be compliant.

8. I am satisfied it’s appropriate to grant the interim order staying the decision until the stay application can be determined.