King v TIC Realty (No 3)

[2010] QCATA 104

CITATION: King v TIC Realty (No 3) [2010] QCATA 104

PARTIES:	Ashley King   (Applicant/Appellant)
v
TIC Realty  (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:            APL306-10   

MATTER TYPE: Appeal

HEARING DATE:   On the papers

HEARD AT:   Brisbane

DECISION OF: Justice Alan Wilson, President

DELIVERED ON:   10 December 2010

DELIVERED AT:   Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:  Grant the respondent an extension of time to file submissions

CATCHWORDS : 

PROCEDURE – EXTENSION OF TIME – where respondent sought short extension of time to file submissions in the appeal proceeding – whether extension should be granted

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 3, 4, 28, 61, 62

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. TIC Realty was the agent of the owner of residential premises at Eight Mile Plains in proceedings brought in QCAT’s Minor Civil Disputes jurisdiction against Mr King, the tenant. On 8 November 2010, at the conclusion of the hearing, a QCAT Adjudicator ordered that the residential tenancy agreement be terminated as from midnight on 15 November 2010 and that a warrant for the possession of the premises issue on 16 November 2010, and remain in effect until 30 November 2010.

2. Mr King has sought leave to appeal QCAT’s decision. Leave is necessary: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) s 142(3). On 15 November 2010 it was ordered that the application for leave to appeal (and the appeal if leave is granted) would be determined on the papers[1]. A timetable for an exchange of submissions was set, and is presently in train.

   [1] Pursuant to s 32 of the QCAT Act

3. Mr King also sought a stay of the operation of the Adjudicator’s decision which was refused, with reasons, on 23 November 2010.

4. In his application for leave to appeal, an order had been made on 15 November 2010 to the effect that the application would be determined on the papers, according to a timetable: Mr King was to file and serve his written submissions by 4pm on 7 December 2010, and the respondent within 21 days thereafter.

5. It seems that Mr King filed written submissions with his application for leave to appeal and served them on the respondent on 22 November 2010, so the 21 day period began to run then. On 8 December 2010 the respondent filed an application to extend the time for its submissions from 12 December – when the 21 days expired – until 4pm on 17 December. That extension was granted under an order of 10 December.

6. Mr King now seeks reasons for that decision.

7. The unfortunate effect of s 122 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) appears to be that even in applications to QCAT’s Appeal Tribunal for leave to appeal minor civil disputes decisions, reasons must yet be given for minor interlocutory directions – involving, here, an extension of time for 5 days of no possible moment or consequence to any party.

8. It is regrettable that the Tribunal is diverted from more important work by demands of the kind Mr King has now brought.  In any event, these are the reasons he has demanded.

9. Under the QCAT Act, the Tribunal is to deal with matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick: s 3(b). To achieve the objects of the legislation the Tribunal must ensure proceedings are conducted in an informal way that minimises cost to parties and is as quick as consistent with achieving justice: s 4(c). Under s 28, in performing its work the Tribunal must ensure, so far as practicable, that all relevant material is disclosed to it to enable it to decide the proceeding; must act with as little formality and technicality and as much speed as proper consider of the matters before it permits; and, is not bound by any practises or procedures applying to courts of record.

10. QCAT also has a very wide discretion to extend times, including time periods set by statutes and legislation: s 61; and, under s 62 may give directions requiring a party to do something within a period stated in the direction, and extend that period: s 62(4)(b).

11. Here the respondent’s non-compliance arose in the face of a procedural order concerning an exchange of written submissions in an application for leave to appeal from a decision given in QCAT’s Minor Civil Disputes jurisdiction. On no view was compliance with the original directions order urgent, or imperative. The respondent gave a plausible explanation for its inability to comply with the original direction by 12 December and asked for an extension for a very short time – 5 days.

12. To have denied that extension in the context of the legislative provisions governing the Tribunals practices and procedures was inconceivable. Denial would also have been against the plain tenets of justice and even-handedness which the legislation, and principles of procedural fairness, dictate. Plainly the respondent was entitled to the short, reasonable extension it sought.