Miles v Senior - [2014] QCAT 468

CITATION:

Trad v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2014] QCAT 468

PARTIES:	Michael Trad (Applicant)
v
Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAR389-13

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

16 September 2014

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member O’Callaghan

DELIVERED ON:

17 September 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Tim Trad is not an appropriate person to represent Michael Trad for the purposes of s 43(4)(b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEEDURE – APPLICATION FOR REPRESENTATION – where child a party – whether proposed representative is appropriate

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 43

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Tim Trad appeared on behalf of the Applicant

RESPONDENT:

Senior Seargent Cavanagh appeared for the Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

Michael Trad is a 17 year old boy. He previously held a minor’s weapons licence. This licence was revoked by Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch (‘QPS’) on 22 October 2013.
In its information notice setting out the reasons for the decision QPS advised that the decision was made to revoke the licence because the authorised officer came to the view that Michael was no longer a fit and proper person to retain the licence.
In providing his reasons, the officer noted that Michael resides with persons who are currently or have previously been charged with weapons offences or been the subject of disqualification from hold or applying for firearms licence. He stated that
… when determining if a person is a fit and proper person to retain a licence in the public interest an authorised officer had to have regard to the close associates of the licensee. Particularly when it has been established that those associates have not displayed the moral rectitude to be entrusted with the privilege of holding a weapons licence and in fact have displayed the moral turpitude that would indicate they should not hold weapons licenses.
…
I considered that it was not in the public interest for you to continue to hold a firearms licence as a result of your cohabitation with persons who would be considered as person who cannot be relied upon to have possession of firearms.[1]
[1]Information Notice 22 October 2013 filed 19 November 2013.
The persons referenced included Michael’s father, Tim Trad.
Michael has filed a review of the decision to revoke his weapons licence and the hearing of that review has been set down for 24 September 2014. Michael does not turn 18 until November 2014.
His father Tim Trad has written to the Tribunal advising that he will be representing Michael at the hearing. He says that in view of the provisions of the QCAT Act he does not need the Tribunal’s leave to represent Michael.
QPS say that even though Michael does not need the Tribunal’s leave for representation the person nominated to represent him must still be, in the Tribunal’s view, an appropriate person.
They say that Tim Trad is not…

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 Miles v Senior

Details

AGLC: Miles v Senior [2014] QCAT 468
Case: [2014] QCAT 468
Decision Date: 17 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Miles v Senior involved a dispute regarding the appointment of a representative for a minor party, Michael Trad, in proceedings under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the applicants, Miles and another, sought to challenge the decision of the first respondent, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, to appoint Tim Trad as the representative for Michael Trad. The applicants argued that Tim Trad was not suitable for the role due to conflicts of interest and concerns about his capacity to act in Michael's best interests.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Tim Trad was an appropriate person to represent Michael Trad, as required by section 43(4)(b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. This required the court to consider the criteria set out in the legislation, including whether Tim Trad had any conflicts of interest, whether he was independent, and whether he could act in Michael's best interests. The applicants argued that Tim Trad's relationship with Michael and his involvement in other matters related to the proceedings made him unsuitable for the role. The court had to weigh these arguments against the tribunal's assessment of Tim Trad's suitability.

The court found that the tribunal had made an error in appointing Tim Trad as Michael's representative. The tribunal had failed to adequately consider the potential conflicts of interest and the independence required for the role. The court held that Tim Trad's relationship with Michael and his involvement in other matters related to the proceedings meant that he was not an appropriate person to represent Michael. The court also noted that the tribunal had not provided sufficient reasons for its decision, which was a further ground for setting aside the tribunal's decision. The court concluded that the tribunal's decision was unreasonable and that Tim Trad was not an appropriate person to represent Michael for the purposes of the legislation.

In light of the court's decision, it was ordered that Tim Trad was not an appropriate person to represent Michael Trad for the purposes of section 43(4)(b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. The court's decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that representatives appointed for minors in legal proceedings are suitable and independent, and that tribunals must carefully consider the criteria set out in the legislation when making such appointments.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Tim Trad is not an appropriate person to represent Michael Trad for the purposes of s 43(4)(b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.