Lloyd v Marlec Electrics Pty Ltd

[2013] QCATA 34

CITATION: Lloyd v Marlec Electrics Pty Ltd [2013] QCATA 34

PARTIES:	Mr Robert Owen Lloyd
v
Marlec Electrics Pty Ltd

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL367-12

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Judge Alexander Horneman-Wren SC, Deputy President

DELIVERED ON: 18 February 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.    The application to stay the decision made in proceeding MCDO171/11 is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – where the applicant filed an application for a stay – where the applicant was directed to file submissions – where the applicant failed to file submissions in support – where there was a typographical error in the directions – whether the application should be dismissed with no further order

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 32

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 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 27 November 2012 the Tribunal made directions about Mr Lloyd’s application for a stay of the Tribunal’s decision made on 21 June 2012.

2. By direction number 3 issued on that date Mr Lloyd was required to provide the Tribunal one copy and give to Marlec Electrics Pty Ltd one copy of any further submissions in support of the stay application by 1 February 2013.

3. Direction number 5 was made in the following terms

   If Mr Robert Owen Lloyd does not comply with paragraph 2 by the said date the application for a stay is dismissed without further order.

4. It is tolerably clear that the reference to “paragraph 2” in direction number 5 was a typographical error. Paragraph 2 directed that the application for a stay would be determined on the papers, by written submissions and without an oral hearing. There was no part in paragraph 2 that required Mr Lloyd’s compliance.

5. It is clear that it was intended to read “paragraph 3”.

6. Mr Lloyd has not complied with paragraph 3 of the directions.

7. The intention of direction 5 was that the non-compliance with the requirements of paragraph 3 would result in the dismissal of the stay application without the requirement for any further order of the Tribunal. Given the typographical error which I have identified, and to remove any doubt as to whether the application has already been dismissed, the Tribunal will make the following order:

   1.    The application to stay the decision made in proceeding MCDO171/11 is refused.