Lopez v Presbyterian and Methodist Schools Association

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Lopez & Anor v Presbyterian and Methodist Schools Association [2022] QCATA 162

PARTIES:

FRANKLIN MOREAN LOPEZ AND
MAIRYM GARCIA ALFARO

(appellants)

V

PRESBYTERIAN AND METHODIST SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NOS:

APL228 of 2021 and APL229 of 2021

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NOS:

MCDO491 of 2020 and MCDO53436 of 2018

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

10 November 2022

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member PG Stilgoe OAM

ORDER:

1.     The application for an extension of time is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – extension of time – minor civil dispute – where application for leave to appeal filed out of time – whether extension of time should be granted – where application for leave to appeal lacks merit – whether appeal would cause irreparable prejudice

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 sch 2 ss 21, 22

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009
ss 3(b), 32, 61(3)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 r 31

Brici v Parry [2019] QCATA 134

Coppens v Water Wise Design Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 309
Danes and Anor v Sulman [2012] QCATA 81
Harper Property Builders Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCATA 70
Lopez & Anor v Brisbane Boys College [2021] QCATA 47
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

Smith & Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 397

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. In 2011, Franklin Lopez and Mairym Alfaro enrolled their son at Brisbane Boys’ College, which is controlled by the Presbyterian and Methodist Schools Association. After periods of financial difficulty, they entered a payment plan with the college in early 2017 on the proviso that their son’s enrolment would be reviewed in 2018 if they defaulted under the payment plan.

2. The parents failed to adhere to the payment plan and so on 28 March 2018, their son’s enrolment was suspended. The college applied to the tribunal for payment of outstanding tuition fees; the parents cross-applied for wrongful termination and repudiation of the contract. After the matters were heard together, the parents’ cross-application was dismissed and they were ordered to pay the outstanding tuition fees. The parents now wish to appeal each matter.

Should an extension of time to file be allowed?

1. The appeals were filed out of time. The parties agree that the applications for leave to appeal or appeal should have been filed by close of business on 10 August 2021.

   
   

   The applications were filed on 13 August 2021, three days late.[1] Although this delay may seem negligible to some, the tribunal must not extend a time limit if it would cause irreversible prejudice to the other party, here being the college.[2] 

   [1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 61(3); Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 r 31(1). Each application for leave to appeal or appeal was recorded…