Hyslop v Peter Pan Publishers Pty Ltd

[2011] QCATA 274

CITATION: Hyslop v Peter Pan Publishers Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 274

PARTIES:	Mr Rodney Charles Hyslop t/as Rod’s Nerang Auto Repairs
v
Peter Pan Publishers Pty Ltd

APPLICATION NUMBER:            APL254 -11              

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE:   On the papers

HEARD AT:   Brisbane

DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe, Acting Senior Member

DELIVERED ON:   16 September 2011

DELIVERED AT:   Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:      Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where applicant did not attend mediation – where decision in default of appearance – where application to reopen refused – whether grounds for leave to appeal

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 143(3), 143(5)

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Manson v Collins [2010] QCATA 63

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Peter Pan Publishers Pty Ltd bought a Ford Econo Van.  The van seller gave Peter Pan a safety certificate prepared by Mr Hyslop.  Soon after purchase, Peter Pan discovered that van had a number of mechanical defects.  The cost of repairing those defects totalled $7,311.

1. Peter Pan brought a claim against Mr Hyslop for the repair costs.  Mr Hyslop did not attend a tribunal ordered mediation on 16 May 2011 so the dispute was referred to an Adjudicator for a decision.  The learned Adjudicator ordered Mr Hyslop pay Peter Pan $7,350.49 within 21 days.

1. Mr Hyslop applied to have the proceeding reopened.  That application was dismissed on 25 July 2011.  Mr Hyslop has filed an application for leave to appeal that decision.

1. Mr Hyslop’s application can be dealt with in short compass. Section 139(5) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 states that the tribunal’s decision about a decision to reopen is final and cannot be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, set aside or called into question. The tribunal has no power to consider Mr Hyslop’s appeal against the decision to refuse the reopening.

1. Mr Hyslop did have a right to appeal the learned Adjudicator’s decision.  That application should have been filed by 27 June 2011.[1]  Mr Hyslop has given no reason for his delay in filing an application for leave to appeal, just as he gave no satisfactory reason for his failure to attend mediation.

   [1] See s 143(4) QCAT Act and Manson v Collins [2010] QCATA 63.

1. Finality in litigation is highly desirable because any further action beyond the hearing can be costly and unnecessarily burdensome on the parties.[2]  Mr Hyslop must bear the consequences of his failure to engage with the tribunal’s process.

   [2]        See Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 128 per Gleeson CJ, Kirby and Gummow JJ.

1. There is no question of general importance that should be determined by the appeals tribunal; there is no reasonable prospect of substantive relief on appeal; and there is no evidence that a substantial injustice will result if leave is not granted.  Leave to appeal should be refused.