Natural Evolution Pty Ltd t/as Natural Evolution Foods v Queensland Rural Industry and Development Authority

[2023] QCAT 381

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Natural Evolution Pty Ltd t/as Natural Evolution Foods v Queensland Rural Industry and Development Authority [2023] QCAT 381

PARTIES:

NATURAL EVOLUTION PTY LTD T/AS NATURAL EVOLUTION FOODS

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND RURAL AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR172-22

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

20 September 2023

HEARING DATE:

14 September 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Olding

ORDERS:

The application for review is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where applicant sought review of decision to issue exemption certificate under the Farm Business Debt Mediation Act 2017 – held Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review decision

Farm Business Debt Mediation Act 2017 (Qld), s 55, s 82

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 9, s ­47

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The applicant applied for review of the respondent’s decision to issue an exemption certificate under s 55 of the Farm Business Debt Mediation Act 2017 (Qld) (“FBDM Act”) relating to the applicant’s alleged indebtedness to Westpac Bank.

2. The applicant’s grievance appears to be that, so it contends, it is not indebted to Westpac. On this premise, the applicant says the respondent has no “jurisdiction” under the FBDM Act.

3. The respondent has applied to have the application for review dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the application. Under s 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal 2009 (Qld) (“QCAT Act”), the Tribunal may dismiss an application that is misconceived or lacking in substance.

4. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review decisions is limited. Not every decision of a government agency may be reviewed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal only has jurisdiction to review a decision if an act of parliament confers jurisdiction to do so in relation to a decision of that kind: QCAT Act, s 9.

5. The applicant filed lengthy written submissions. However, those submissions were largely directed at the applicant’s contentions regarding the alleged indebtedness. The applicant was also given an opportunity at an oral hearing to identify any legislative provision that would confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review a decision to issue an exemption certificate. The applicant’s director, Mr Watkins, also handed up copies of additional materials which I have carefully reviewed.

6. In short, none of the applicant’s submissions or materials identified any basis on which the Tribunal could be said to have jurisdiction to review a decision to issue an exemption certificate. The only class of decision under the FBDM Act that is reviewable by the Tribunal is an accreditation decision: FBDM Act, s 82. That provision does not empower the Tribunal to review the respondent’s decision in this case.

7. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider the applicant’s application for review. It follows that the application for review must be dismissed.