Loria v Maritime Safety Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads)
[2014] QCAT 58
•19 February 2014
| CITATION: | Loria v Maritime Safety Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) [2014] QCAT 58 |
| PARTIES: | Jean-Paul Loria (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Maritime Safety Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) (First Respondent) Stephen Leslie Torpey (Second Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAR149-13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On The Papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Member Hughes |
| DELIVERED ON: | 19 February 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | Stephen Leslie Torpey is joined as a Respondent to this proceeding. |
| CATCHWORDS: | JOINDER – no evidence of prejudice to parties - holder of authority - interests affected – bound by decision – procedural fairness – legitimate expectation - interests of justice – opportunity to be heard Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), section 42 Coral Homes (Qld) Pty Ltd v. Queensland Building Services Authority [2012] QCATA 241 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
REASONS FOR DECISION
What is this Application about?
Mr Jean-Paul Loria has applied to the Tribunal for it to review a decision by Maritime Safety Queensland to approve a restricted buoy mooring to Mr Stephen Torpey.
Mr Torpey wants to be joined as a Respondent to Mr Loria’s application.
Maritime does not object to Mr Torpey being joined.
Mr Loria opposes Mr Torpey being joined.
Why does Mr Torpey want to be joined as a Respondent?
Mr Torpey claims his interests may be affected by the proceeding. He states that Maritime’s decision to approve the mooring has provided him with a safe, convenient and inexpensive method to moor his commercial boat close to his home. He claims that he will suffer significant financial detriment if Maritime’s decision is revoked because of the time and cost in mooring it elsewhere.
He adds that the reason for Mr Loria’s application is not safety concerns, but interference with river views.
Mr Torpey therefore wants the opportunity to present his view and relevant evidence.
Why does Mr Loria oppose Mr Torpey being joined as a Respondent?
Mr Loria claims that joining Mr Torpey is irrelevant and offers no benefit to the case. He adds that the sole basis of his application is safety concerns with the location of the buoy.
How is the law applied?
The Tribunal may join a party if the Tribunal considers that the person should be bound by or have the benefit of a decision in the proceeding, the person’s interests may be affected by the proceeding or it is desirable for the person to be joined.[1]
[1] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 42(1).
However:
… simply because a party’s interests may be affected does not mean, as a matter of course, that an order joining a party should be made… there must be some utility or purpose in the joinder. It might be that the joinder would avoid duplication of the litigation or multiplicity of proceedings… there might be common question of fact or law… the joinder may enable all issues in dispute between affected parties to be finally determined… or it may be that the parties joined would be amenable to an order of the tribunal in the proceeding in the Tribunal. There are also questions of prejudice to the proposed parties in terms of costs, whether the process would be unnecessarily lengthened and, importantly, whether the objects set out in s 3 of the QCAT (Act) would be achieved. These are some of the matters that might be taken into account in the exercise of the discretion but are by no means exhaustive and each case would depend on its own particular circumstances.[2]
[2] Coral Homes (Qld) Pty Ltd v. Queensland Building Services Authority [2012] QCATA
241 at paragraph [11].
There is no evidence of prejudice to the parties in terms of costs or delay.
As the holder of the Mooring Authority, Mr Torpey stands to benefit or suffer from a decision to review the approval of the Authority. If the Tribunal affirms the approval, he will continue to enjoy the commercial and financial benefits of mooring his boat at the approved site. If the Tribunal overturns the approval, he will not. Either way, Mr Torpey will be bound by the decision.
Mr Torpey’s position is analogous to the holder of a licence. Revocation of a licence usually attracts the principles of procedural fairness, particularly when revocation may result in financial loss.[3] At the very least, Mr Torpey has a legitimate expectation that the Mooring Authority will not be overturned without having an opportunity to meet the objections to the Authority.[4] This is fortified by the possible impact on Mr Torpey’s existing commercial interest in the Authority.[5]
[3] FAI Insurances Ltd v. Winneke (1981) 151 CLR 342 at 360, per Mason J (as he then
was).
[4] Ibid at 369, per Mason J (as he then was).
[5] Ibid at 412, per Brennan J (as he then was).
I am therefore satisfied that because he is the holder of the Authority under review, Mr Torpey’s interests will be affected by the proceeding, and moreover, he will be bound by the decision. I am further satisfied that as the holder of the Authority under review, Mr Torpey is entitled to procedural fairness and therefore the interests of justice dictate that it is desirable that he is joined to the proceeding.
It would be contrary to the interests of justice if a decision of the Tribunal had the effect of revoking Mr Torpey’s Authority without Mr Torpey having an opportunity to be heard on the issue.[6]
[6] Dawson-Wells v. Office of the Information Commissioner [2013] QCATA 4 at paragraph
[13].
What are the appropriate Orders?
The appropriate Order is that Stephen Leslie Torpey is joined as a party to the proceeding. Mr Torpey will be the Second Respondent.
0
3
1