Lewis v Brisbane City Council - [2014] QCAT 283

CITATION:

Lewis v Brisbane City Council [2014] QCAT 283

PARTIES:	Leone Lewis (Applicant)
v
Brisbane City Council (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAR129-14

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member O’Callaghan

DELIVERED ON:

29 May 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application to extend or shorten a time limit or for waiver of compliance with procedural requirement filed on 13 May 2014 is refused.

2. The application for review is therefore dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – extension of time to lodge review

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 61

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

Leone Lewis owns a Staffordshire Bull Terrier cross breed dog called Rosie.
Rosie was seized by the Brisbane City Council (‘BCC’) in November 2013 following a failure by Ms Lewis to comply with conditions imposed following the declaration of Rosie as a dangerous dog.
In January 2014 BCC, on an internal review, confirmed its decision to issue a destruction notice with respect to Rosie.
On 10 April 2014 Ms Lewis filed an application in QCAT to review that decision. As the review application was filed out of time she also sought an extension of time to lodge the review.
On 29 May 2014 I ordered that the application to extend time (and consequently the review application) be dismissed. Ms Lewis has sought reasons for that decision and these are those reasons.

Background

The submissions received from BCC set out the events leading to the decision to seize Rosie.
·       On 4 January 2012 BCC received a complaint relating to an alleged attack on a person by Rosie.
·       Rosie was unregistered with the Council at the time of the attack.
·       BCC issued a prescribed infringement notice to Ms Lewis.
·       On 17 August 2012 BCC received a further complaint from a person alleged to have been attacked by Rosie causing a puncture injury to the complainant’s thigh.
·       On 25 September 2012 a proposed regulated dog declaration notice was issued to Ms Lewis advising her that it was proposed that Rosie would be declared a dangerous dog and inviting submissions.
·       No submissions were received. It is noted that Ms Lewis says she did not receive the invitation to make submissions.
·       On 10 October 2012 a notice was sent to Ms Lewis advising that Rosie had been declared a dangerous dog. The notice included the requirements that had to be complied with for keeping the dangerous dog.
·       On 30 July 2013 a BCC inspection took place at the address were Rosie was housed. It was found that the fencing was not in accordance with the requirements, in particular:
i)Access could not be gained to the front access door of the premises.
ii)Parts of the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lewis v Brisbane City Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] QCAT 283
Decision Date: 29 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lewis v Brisbane City Council was brought before the court, where the applicant sought an extension of time to lodge a review against a decision made by the Brisbane City Council. The applicant, Mr Lewis, had previously been granted an extension of time to lodge the review but missed the new deadline, necessitating a further application for an extension or waiver of compliance. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant's circumstances justified an extension of time or a waiver of the procedural requirement.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide upon included whether Mr Lewis's delay in lodging his application for an extension was reasonable, and whether there were any exceptional circumstances that warranted the court to exercise its discretion to extend the time limit or waive the procedural requirement. The court needed to consider the principles of procedural fairness and whether the delay had caused any prejudice to the respondent, the Brisbane City Council.

In assessing the application, the court considered the principles of procedural fairness and the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. The court found that Mr Lewis had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of time or a waiver of the procedural requirement. The court held that the applicant had not acted with due diligence in lodging his application for an extension and that there was no evidence of any prejudice to the respondent. As such, the court refused the application for an extension of time or waiver of compliance, and consequently, dismissed the application for review.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to extend or shorten a time limit or for waiver of compliance with procedural requirement filed on 13 May 2014 is refused.

2. The application for review is therefore dismissed.

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.