Luscombe v Russell (No 2)
[2013] QCAT 211
| CITATION: | Luscombe & Anor v Russell & Anor (No 2) [2013] QCAT 211 |
| PARTIES: | Mr Tony Jason Luscombe (First Applicant) Luscombe Builders Pty Ltd ACN 112 230 912 (Second Applicant) |
| v | |
| Mr Cameron Russell (First Respondent) Ms Amanda Russell (Second Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | BDL145-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Building matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Richard Oliver, Senior Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 13 May 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The time for Tony Jason Luscombe to comply with direction 2 of the directions dated 17 April 2013 is extended to 17 May 2013. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Case management – where extension of time to comply with directions – where applicant hospitalised. |
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
On 8 May 2013 Mr Luscombe filed an application for an extension of time to comply with direction 2 of the directions made on 17 April 2013 requiring him to provide a list of documents relevant to his claim for variations by 10 May 2013. The application for extension of time was opposed by the respondents on the grounds that he had adequate time to meet his requirements. In opposing the extension of time the respondents did not make any reference to Mr Luscombe’s reasons for the extension of time.
Mr Luscombe’s reasons are set out in the application. They are that he, Mr Luscombe, had been hospitalised for a medical condition between 25 April 2013 and 2 May 2013. He also required some time to convalesce after his discharge. A medical certificate has been produced by Mr Luscombe. This certificate corroborates his statement about being incapacitated for that period.
After considering this evidence I felt compelled to grant the extension of time. In fact, it was rather surprising that Mr Russell did object to the extension because in an earlier email to the Tribunal on 29 April 2013, he queried how Mr Luscombe’s hospitalisation would affect the timetable that had been put in place by the directions made and said it would be prudent for the Tribunal to allow an appropriate extension of time to which “we would have no objection to assuming the nature of the applicant’s condition warranted.”
Clearly, in reliance on the doctor’s report and Mr Luscombe’s hospitalisation the granting of an extension is warranted. The matter will still proceed to the experts conclave on 27 May 2013 and therefore the extension of time will not have any impact on this important milestone.
Those are my reasons for granting the extension of time.
0
0
0