JJ Richards and Sons Pty Ltd v Rose Park Stud Pty Ltd
[2014] QCAT 551
•28 October 2014
| CITATION: | JJ Richards and Sons Pty Ltd v Rose Park Stud Pty Ltd [2014] QCAT 551 |
| PARTIES: | JJ Richards and Sons Pty Ltd (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Rose Park Stud Pty Ltd (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDO0119-14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Other minor civil dispute matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Ipswich |
| DECISION OF: | Adjudicator LeMass |
| DELIVERED ON: | 28 October 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Ipswich |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Application for a reopening filed by Rose Park Stud Pty Ltd (Respondent) has been refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Minor Civil Dispute – Application for Reopening |
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 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
This matter was heard and determined in the absence of the Respondent. It is apparent from the file that the address supplied for the Respondent was its solicitor, applications to the Magistrates Court were filed by that solicitor. Notice of hearing and subsequent orders were sent to that solicitor. Such notices clearly stating a hearing time of 11.30am.
At the hearing the member turned her mind to section 93 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 and had her clerk ring that solicitor. It is apparent that the solicitor knew of the hearing, because notes state ‘Respondent is going to appear personally’. Following which the hearing proceeded.
Nothing further being heard from the Solicitor.
The respondent sought reopening.
No reopening ground was made out. The date and time for hearing is clear on notice. The solicitor clearly knew of it when contacted by the clerk. There is no excuse for not attending.
There are no submissions as to the second limb, substantial injustice or new evidence.
The application was refused.
0
0
0