Oakley v Baille

[2013] QCATA 282

CITATION: Oakley v Baille [2013] QCATA 282

PARTIES:	Meagan Lee Oakley (Applicant)
v
Kerry Baille Russell Baille (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL360 -13

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: P Stilgoe OAM, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 25 September 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The application to extend or shorten a time limit or for waiver of compliance with procedural requirement is refused.

2.    The application for leave to appeal is refused.

3.    The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where application to extend time to file application for leave to appeal – where applicant failed to attend two tribunal hearings – where no explanation for delay

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 45, 61, 143(3)

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The appeal tribunal heard and determined this matter on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 16 April 2013, an Adjudicator of the tribunal made a decision in a tenancy application. Ms Oakley was not present at the hearing but she received the decision on 26 April 2013. The tribunal issued an amended decision in June 2013. Ms Oakley received a copy of the tribunal’s reasons for decision on 12 July 2013. She filed an application for leave to appeal on 23 August 2013.

2. Ms Oakley should have filed her application for leave to appeal by 9 August 2013[1].  The tribunal can extend the time for filing such an application[2], but it generally requires an explanation of the delay and evidence that the extension will not cause detriment to the other party.

   [1] QCAT Act s 143(3).

   [2] QCAT Act s 61.

3. Ms Oakley has not explained her delay. While 14 days is not necessarily a long time, I note that the decision was given in April 2013. Mr and Ms Baille make the point that the dispute arose in December 2012 and they are seeking closure. They also make the point that Ms Oakley failed to appear at two tribunal hearings.

4. Finality in litigation is highly desirable because any further action beyond the hearing can be costly and unnecessarily burdensome on the parties.[3] The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) requires[4] parties to act quickly in any dealing relevant to a proceeding. Ms Oakley has not acted quickly. She has not demonstrated a good reason for extending the time in which to file an application for leave to appeal. The application to extend time should be dismissed. It stands to reason that the application for leave to appeal, and appeal, will also be dismissed.

   [3]        See Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 128 per Gleeson CJ, Kirby and Gummow JJ.

   [4] QCAT Act s 45.