Low v Laing-Short - [2020] QCATA 69

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Low v Laing-Short [2020] QCATA 69

PARTIES: RICK LOW

(applicant/appellant)

v

VICTORIA LAING-SHORT

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL 034-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

Q 22/19

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

12 May 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the Papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Fitzpatrick

ORDERS:
1.   Extension of time to seek reasons for refusal to re-open the proceedings is refused.

2.   Extension of time to seek leave to appeal or appeal is refused.

3.   The application for a stay of the decision dated 10 September 2019 in Q 22/19 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – EXTENSION OF TIME – where the respondent unsuccessfully sought an adjournment of the minor civil debt hearing – where the respondent did not appear at the hearing or give evidence - where subsequent unsuccessful application to re-open – where the respondent seeks an extension of time to seek reasons for the refusal to re-open, a stay and for leave to appeal or appeal.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s3(b), s47, s61, s139(5), s142(3)

Reeve v Hamlyn [2015] QCATA 133.

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:  Mr O El-Hissi of NOH Legal, Level 13, 200 Queen Street,

  Melbourne, Victoria.

Respondent:  Self-represented.

APPEARANCES:                  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

Mr Low was the respondent to an application for a minor civil dispute – minor debt brought by Ms Laing-Short, seeking recovery of $13,774.55 for unpaid invoices for consultancy services.
The following is a relevant chronology:
(a)Minor civil dispute – minor debt filed by Ms Laing-Short on 5 February 2019.
(b)11 April 2019 Mr Low applied to set aside a default decision given on 6 March 2019 against him.
(c)30 April 2019 application to set aside the default decision was granted.
(d)10 September 2019, a hearing took place when:
(i)      an application made orally seeking an adjournment was refused;
(ii)      leave for legal representation was granted;
(iii)     Mr Low was ordered to pay Ms Laing-Short $13,706.20 within 7 days.
(e)30 September 2019 Mr Low applied to re-open the proceedings and for a stay of the 10 September 2019 judgment.
(f)8 October 2019 stay of the decision refused.
(g)22 October 2019 Mr Low’s application to re-open the matter refused.
(h)27 December 2019 Mr Low requested reasons for the refusal of his application to re-open the 10 September 2019 decision.
(i)7 February 2020 Mr Low filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal from the 10 September 2019 decision and the decision refusing the stay.
(j)On 7 February 2020 Mr Low filed an application seeking a stay of the decision made 10 September 2019.
(k)On 7 February 2020 Mr Low filed an application seeking an order granting an extension of time:
(i)      to request reasons for the refusal to re-open the proceeding to the date when the request was made on 27 December 2019; and further that…

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.

Continue reading Low v Laing-Short

Details

AGLC: Low v Laing-Short [2020] QCATA 69
Case: [2020] QCATA 69
Decision Date: 12 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Low v Laing-Short is a decision from the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, concerning a minor civil debt dispute. The respondent, Mr Laing-Short, unsuccessfully sought an adjournment of the hearing, did not appear or give evidence at the hearing, and subsequently, an application to re-open the proceedings was denied. The applicant, Mr Low, sought an extension of time to seek reasons for the refusal to re-open, a stay, and for leave to appeal or to appeal the decision made on 10 September 2019.

The legal issues before the court involved the discretion to grant an extension of time to Mr Low, the propriety of staying the decision pending an appeal, and the merits of the application for leave to appeal. The court examined whether Mr Low had a reasonable excuse for missing the hearing, whether he acted promptly in seeking the extension, and whether there was a prospect of success in the appeal.

The court found that Mr Low had not provided a reasonable excuse for his failure to attend the hearing or give evidence. Additionally, the court held that Mr Low had not acted promptly in seeking the extension of time, as he did not make the application within a reasonable time after learning of the refusal to re-open the proceedings. The court also noted that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, as the decision of the Tribunal was based on findings that were not challenged on appeal. Accordingly, the court refused the extension of time and dismissed the application for a stay.

In conclusion, the orders of the court were that the extension of time to seek reasons for refusal to re-open the proceedings was refused, the extension of time to seek leave to appeal or appeal was refused, and the application for a stay of the decision dated 10 September 2019 in Q 22/19 was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Extension of time to seek reasons for refusal to re-open the proceedings is refused.

2. Extension of time to seek leave to appeal or appeal is refused.

3. The application for a stay of the decision dated 10 September 2019 in Q 22/19 is 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

For all these reasons, I refuse to grant Mr Low an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal or appeal the decision made on 10 September 2019.Application for a stay of the 10 September 2019 decision An application for a stay pending a decision in the re-opening application was refused by decision dated 8 October 2019. The further application for a stay of the decision pending any appeal decision is of no utility in view of my decision to refuse an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal or appeal. The application is dismissed pursuant to s47(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).Orders The orders are as follows:(a)Extension of time to seek reasons for refusal to re-open the proceedings is refused.(b)Extension of time to seek leave to appeal or appeal is refused.(c)The application for a stay of the decision dated 10 September 2019 in Q 22/19 is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Low v Laing-Short [2020] QCATA 69
PARTIES:	RICK LOW
(applicant/appellant)
v
VICTORIA LAING-SHORT
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL 034-20
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	Q 22/19
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	12 May 2020
HEARING DATE:	On the Papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Fitzpatrick
ORDERS:	1. Extension of time to seek reasons for refusal to re-open the proceedings is refused. 2. Extension of time to seek leave to appeal or appeal is refused. 3. The application for a stay of the decision dated 10 September 2019 in Q 22/19 is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – EXTENSION OF TIME – where the respondent unsuccessfully sought an adjournment of the minor civil debt hearing – where the respondent did not appear at the hearing or give evidence - where subsequent unsuccessful application to re-open – where the respondent seeks an extension of time to seek reasons for the refusal to re-open, a stay and for leave to appeal or appeal. Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s3(b), s47, s61, s139(5), s142(3) Reeve v Hamlyn [2015] QCATA 133.
REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Mr O El-Hissi of NOH Legal, Level 13, 200 Queen Street, Melbourne, Victoria. Respondent: Self-represented. APPEARANCES: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).