Johnson v Modern Group (Qld) Pty Ltd

[2011] QCAT 414

CITATION: Johnson v Modern Group (Qld) Pty Ltd [2011] QCAT 414

PARTIES:	Mr Keith Johnson
v
Modern Group (Qld) Pty Ltd

APPLICATION NUMBER:   REO010-11

MATTER TYPE: Other civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe, Member

DELIVERED ON: 22 August 2011

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:     The tribunal directs the Principal Registrar to reject the application pursuant to s 35(6) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

CATCHWORDS:

Application to reopen – where no new evidence

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 137, 139

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. The Principal Registrar has rejected Mr Johnson’s application to reopen proceedings finalised by the former Commercial and Consumer Tribunal on 7 July 2009. Mr Johnson has applied for a review of that decision pursuant to s 35(4)(b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

2. The Principal Registrar listed the reasons why she refused Mr Johnson’s application:

a)The application does not disclose any grounds capable of satisfying the reopening provisions of s 137 of the QCAT Act.

b)The application was brought almost two years after the original decision of the tribunal.

c)Mr Johnson has already brought an application to reopen proceedings, which application was refused.[1]  The issues cannot be re-litigated.

[1]        Johnson v Modern Group (Qld) Pty Ltd [2010] QCAT 375.

1. Mr Johnson’s reason for the current reopening application is that Mr Coles, from Modern, “lied under oath in the initial proceedings and this resulted in [his] application being unsuccessful”.

2. Section 139(4) of the QCAT Act provides that the tribunal may only grant such an application if it considers that a reopening ground exists and the ground could be effectively or conveniently dealt with by reopening the proceeding. Section 137 sets out the meaning of “reopening ground”. The only relevant meaning for Mr Johnson’s application is:

   “the party would suffer a substantial injustice if the proceeding was not reopened because significant new evidence has arisen and that evidence was not reasonably available when the proceeding was first heard and decided”.[2]

   [2] Section 137(b) QCAT Act.

3. Mr Johnson has not provided any new evidence.  Certainly, there is no evidence to support Mr Johnson’s allegation.  The Principal Registrar’s decision is correct and Mr Johnson’s application to reopen must, once again, fail.