Hendle v Western Downs Regional Council

[2020] QCAT 485

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Hendle v Western Downs Regional Council [2020] QCAT 485

PARTIES:

WILLIAM GEORGE HENDLE

(applicant)

v

WESTERN DOWNS REGIONAL COUNCIL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR203-20

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

5 November 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Cranwell

ORDERS:

The application for review is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where decision made under local law – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 17

REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented
APPEARANCES:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The decision under review was made by the Western Downs Regional Council on 8 May 2020, and relates to the seizure of animals under Local Law No. 2 (Animal Management) 2011.  Schedule 2 of Subordinate Local Law No. 2 (Animal Management) 2011, made pursuant to Local Law No. 2 (Animal Management) 2011, places limits on the number of dogs that may be kept on certain properties.  The Council claims that Mr Hendle exceeded those limits, and seized dogs in excess of these limits.

2. For inexplicable reasons, the decision notice contains the following statement:

   Council trusts this now finalises the matter however, should you remain dissatisfied with Council’s decision, you should immediately request an external review of the matter by applying to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

3. Mr Hendle duly made such an application on 12 June 2020.

4. The Tribunal (differently constituted) made directions on 24 June 2020 and 13 July 2020 requiring the parties to file submissions on the issue of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decision.

5. Section 17(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) provides:

   The tribunal’s review jurisdiction is the jurisdiction conferred on the tribunal by an enabling Act to review a decision made or taken to have been made by another entity under that Act.

6. Section 36 of Local Law No. 2 (Animal Management) 2011 provides for the appeal of destruction orders to be made to the Magistrates Court.  Part 4 of Local Law No. 1 (Administration) 2011 provides for other applications for review to be made to the chief executive officer, and s 24(2) provides for applications for a stay to be made to the Magistrates Court.  However, neither Local Law No. 1 (Administration) 2011 nor Local Law No. 2 (Animal Management) 2011 confer review jurisdiction on the Tribunal. 

7. In those circumstances, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decision and the application is dismissed.