Hodges v Boe - [2019] QCATA 39

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Hodges v Boe & Anor [2019] QCATA 39

PARTIES:

RONALD NEAL HODGES
(appellant)

v

ROBYN JEAN BOE

(first respondent)

JOHN WILLIAM BOE

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL304-18

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO50014-17 (Southport)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

29 March 2019

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:

The application to extend time within which to file an application for leave to appeal or appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TIME, EXTENSION AND ABRIDGMENT – where the appellant applied for leave to appeal more than 16 months after judgement against him – where no explanation given for delay – where fresh evidence proposed to be led on appeal – where fresh evidence purported to be expert evidence – where no expertise on the part of the expert established – where no basis laid for the evidence relied on by the proposed expert

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28, s 143(3)

Blair v Harbrew Pty Ltd [2013] QCATA 19
Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor
[2011] QCAT 229
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21
Forrester v Harris Farm Pty Ltd (1996) 129 FLR 431

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondents:

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

The respondents commenced proceedings in the Tribunal suing on a guarantee signed by the appellant given to the respondents guaranteeing the repayment of loan moneys to a third party.
At the hearing, the appellant denied signing the guarantee however the learned Adjudicator hearing the respondents’ claim gave judgment for the respondents in the sum of $25,000. That was on 28 June 2017.
On 20 November 2018 the appellant filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal in the Tribunal against that decision.
The appellant is out of time in respect of his application for leave to appeal or appeal. He had 28 days after being given notice of the decision to file the application.[1] In fact the application has been made more than 16 months late.
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 143(3).
The appellant seeks leave to extend the time within which to file his application for leave to appeal or appeal.
The factors to be considered in an application for an extension of time for leave to appeal are set out in the Tribunal decision of Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor:[2]
a. Whether a satisfactory explanation or good reason is shown to account for the delay
b. The strength of the case the applicant wishes to bring (assuming it is possible for some view on this to be formed upon the preliminary material)
c. Prejudice to adverse parties
d. Length of the delay, (a short delay is usually easier to excuse than a lengthy one)
e. Overall,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hodges v Boe

Details

AGLC: Hodges v Boe [2019] QCATA 39
Case: [2019] QCATA 39
Decision Date: 29 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hodges, sought leave to appeal a decision against him, filed more than 16 months after the judgment. The respondent, Boe, opposed the application on the grounds of delay and the absence of any justification for the late filing. Hodges also sought to introduce new evidence, including expert evidence, which was not disclosed earlier. The court had to determine whether to grant the application for an extension of time and whether the new evidence proposed was admissible.

The court examined the reasons for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal and found none provided. It held that a significant delay without explanation is a strong reason to refuse an extension of time. Additionally, the court scrutinised the proposed expert evidence, noting that the expert's qualifications and the basis of the expert's opinion were not established. The court concluded that there was no valid basis for the new evidence and that it would not be considered.

As a result, the application for an extension of time to file the appeal was refused. The court found that the delay was unjustifiable, and the proposed expert evidence was not admissible. The decision underscored the importance of timely applications and the necessity of establishing the credibility of expert evidence. The court's decision was final, and no appeal was permitted due to the lack of a timely application and the inadmissibility of the new evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application to extend time within which to file an application for leave to appeal or appeal is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Hodges v Boe & Anor [2019] QCATA 39
PARTIES:	RONALD NEAL HODGES (appellant)
v
ROBYN JEAN BOE (first respondent) JOHN WILLIAM BOE (second respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL304-18
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	MCDO50014-17 (Southport)
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	29 March 2019
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Howe
ORDERS:	The application to extend time within which to file an application for leave to appeal or appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TIME, EXTENSION AND ABRIDGMENT – where the appellant applied for leave to appeal more than 16 months after judgement against him – where no explanation given for delay – where fresh evidence proposed to be led on appeal – where fresh evidence purported to be expert evidence – where no expertise on the part of the expert established – where no basis laid for the evidence relied on by the proposed expert Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28, s 143(3) Blair v Harbrew Pty Ltd [2013] QCATA 19 Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor [2011] QCAT 229 Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21 Forrester v Harris Farm Pty Ltd (1996) 129 FLR 431
REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondents:	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).