MacDonald v Womc Pty Ltd t/as Remax Gold
[2014] QCATA 358
•17 December 2014
| CITATION: | MacDonald v WOMC Pty Ltd t/as Remax Gold [2014] QCATA 358 |
| PARTIES: | Diana MacDonald (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| WOMC Pty Ltd t/as Remax Gold (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL474-13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | A/Deputy President Stilgoe OAM |
| DELIVERED ON: | 17 December 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application for extension of time in which to file the application for leave to appeal is refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – MINOR DEBT – where application for costs under agreement – where tribunal ordered payment of claim – where application for leave to appeal filed late – whether grounds to extend time for filing application for leave to appeal Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 61 Coppens v Water Wise Design Pty Ltd |
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 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
WOMC Pty Ltd t/as Remax Gold filed a minor debt claim for fees and expenses it incurred which, it said, were payable by Ms MacDonald. A Magistrate, sitting in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the tribunal ordered Ms MacDonald pay WOMC most of the claim.
The learned Magistrate gave his decision on 9 August 2013. Ms MacDonald received the decision on 13 August 2013. She filed an application for leave to appeal on 17 September 2013. Ms MacDonald’s application for leave to appeal was filed seven days late. She needed an extension of time.
The tribunal may extend a time limit fixed for the start of a proceeding fixed by the QCAT Act[1], even if the time for complying with the relevant requirement has passed[2]. However, the tribunal cannot extend time if to do so would cause prejudice or detriment to a party to a proceeding, not able to be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or damages.[3]
[1]QCAT Act s 61(1)(a).
[2]QCAT Act s 61(2).
[3]QCAT Act s 61(3).
As the appeal tribunal has observed[4], consideration of whether or not an extension should be granted is a two-step process. Firstly, the appeal tribunal must consider whether to do so would cause prejudice or detriment to a party to a proceeding, not able to be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or damages.
[4]Coppens v Water Wise Design Pty Ltd at [8].
Although it opposes the application for an extension of time, WOMC does not assert that it will suffer any prejudice through an extension that cannot be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or damages. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the second step in the process; whether the appeal tribunal should exercise its discretion to grant an extension. Factors which are relevant to this exercise include[5]:
a) Whether a satisfactory explanation (or “good reason”) is shown to account for the delay.
b) The strength of the case the applicant wishes to bring (assuming it is possible for some view on this to be formed on the preliminary material).
c) The length of the delay.
d) Overall, whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension. This usually calls for some analysis of the above factors considered in combination.
[5]Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman and Anor [2011] QCAT 229.
The delay in this case has been short. It also appears that Ms MacDonald has a valid reason for her delay. WOMC disputes Ms MacDonald’s evidence of ill-health but she has taken the trouble to supply medical evidence and I am prepared to accept that. In other circumstances, I would be inclined to grant the extension.
However, Ms MacDonald’s grounds of appeal are entirely without merit. At paragraph 7 of her application, in bold type, Ms MacDonald submits that she wanted to address WOMC’s breach of contract, and how those breaches had effectively prevented her from earning an income. Ms MacDonald raised those issues at the hearing before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate pointed out that these were matters for a counterclaim, which he could not hear that day. He noted that Ms MacDonald did not dispute the amounts WOMC claimed.
The hearing was adjourned once because of Ms MacDonald’s ill health. At the hearing, she applied for another adjournment[6] ‘because the dealings with WorkCover are not complete’. The learned Magistrate rejected the request for adjournment because the finalisation of the WorkCover claim would not affect the minor debt application before him.
[6]Transcript page 2-2, lines 14 – 15.
Ms MacDonald states, in her submissions, that she is aware her issues with WOMC are for another Court but she argues its actions are breaches of the common law and the contract which have negatively impacted on her ability to earn income and that this outcome is ‘unconscionable conduct and not natural justice’. The tribunal’s obligation to provide natural justice is procedural, not substantive. That means that the learned Magistrate had to ensure a fair opportunity for Ms MacDonald to state her case. It does not mean the learned Magistrate had to ensure an outcome that Ms MacDonald considered fair.
The interest of justice do not favour the grant of an extension. WOMC filed its claim in September 2012. The learned Magistrate handed down his decision in May 2013. There is no evidence to suggest that Ms MacDonald has filed fresh proceeding in another Court, as the learned Magistrate suggested, that would address many of her concerns. She still has her rights. The application for an extension of time should be refused.
0
1
0