Plastic Fabrications Australia Pty Ltd v Beckside Constructions Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

[2011] QCATA 305

CITATION: Plastic Fabrications Australia Pty Ltd v Beckside Constructions Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2011] QCATA 305

PARTIES:	Plastic Fabrications Australia Pty Ltd (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Beckside Constructions Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL073-11

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Richard Oliver, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 7 November 2011

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

Minor Civil Dispute – where no appearance at the hearing – no submissions filed and no grounds for leave in the application – failure to apply to reopen

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, ss 138, 142(3)

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Beckside filed an application for a minor civil dispute claiming $18,334.93 from Plastic Fabrications for arrears of rent of some $17,945.38.  The balance of the claim is made up of the filing fee, service costs and search fees.

1. The application came on for hearing in the Tribunal on two occasions and on both, at the request of the respondent, the hearing was adjourned.

1. When the matter finally came on for hearing on 27 January 2011 there was no appearance by the respondent and the learned Adjudicator made an order that Plastic Fabrications pay to Beckside $18,334,93.

1. From that order, Plastic Fabrications has filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal.  Leave is necessary as this is an appeal from a decision in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction.[1]  In the grounds of appeal, Plastic Fabrications has requested more time to gather documentation, complains that calls to their Southport Court House were not returned and further, that payments of rent had been made directly to the owner.

[1] QCAT Act, s 142(3).

1. The grounds of appeal do not identify or attempt to identify any error of law on the part of the learned Adjudicator in making the final order.  The grounds of appeal address the merits of the defence, and also attempt to offer some justification or excuse as to why there was no appearance at the hearing. 

1. In the orders sought, Plastic Fabrications are really asking the Tribunal to rehear the matter because it has evidence it wants to place before the Tribunal concerning relocation costs.  Once again, there is no attempt to identify any error to justify the grant of leave. 

1. Leave to appeal will ordinarily only be granted where there is some question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage; or, there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision and a reasonable prospect that the applicant would obtain further substantive relief.  Another question sometimes asked is: is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant, caused by some error?  None of that criteria is met here.

1. Plastic Fabrications have not filed any submissions in accordance with the directions made which might have been of some assistance to the Appeal Tribunal in determining whether leave should be granted.

1. The essence of the application for leave to appeal is really an application to reopen on the basis of Plastic Fabrications’ non attendance at the hearing.  An application to reopen will be considered by the Tribunal if the applicant has a reasonable excuse for not attending the hearing or the applicant would suffer a substantial injustice if the matter was not reopened.[2]  The Appeal Tribunal is not the place for the consideration of such an application.

[2] QCAT Act, s 138.

[10]  In this application, Plastic Fabrications has not identified any error on the part of the learned Adjudicator and therefore leave to appeal must be refused.