Premila Pty Ltd v Monaghan

Case [2021] QCATA 86

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Premila Pty Ltd v Monaghan [2021] QCATA 86

PARTIES:

PREMILA PTY LTD ACN 606348190

(appellant)

v

PHILLIP MONAGHAN

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL333-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO 65/20

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

8 July 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Hughes

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to appeal granted.

2.   The appeal is allowed.

3.   The Tribunal’s orders of 23 October 2020 are set aside.

4.   The application is remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted Tribunal.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVING ERROR OF LAW – DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE – where appellant and its lawyer did not attend a hearing adjourned at their request to a date convenient to them – where they did not inform the Tribunal they would not attend – where Tribunal led into error by awarding more than amount in application –– where errors of law for which leave should be granted to correct substantial injustice 

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 13, s 28, s 64, s 142

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39
Breezeway Developments Pty Ltd v ADG Hydraulics Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 69
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Creek v Raine & Horne Real Estate Mossman [2011] QCATA 226
Crime and Corruption Commission v Deputy Commissioner Stephen Gollschewski [2014] QCAT 359
Exeter Nominees Pty Ltd v Roar Marketing Concepts Pty Ltd [2020] QCATA 118
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Laker Paint Company Pty Ltd v Bray [2013] QCATA 90
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577
Nicholls & Anor v Kline Industries International Pty Ltd [2018] QCATA 123
QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41
The Pot Man Pty Ltd v Reaoch [2011] QCATA 318
Tilecorp Pty Ltd v Pinnacle Seal Pty Ltd [2011] QCAT 52
W&E Carlsen Builders v Tressider [2014] QCAT 131
Wimberley v Misevski [2013] QCATA 223

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

D Evans of Evans Brandon Family Lawyers

Respondent:

Self-represented

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this appeal about?

  1. Premila Pty Ltd decided not to attend a hearing that had been adjourned at its request to a more convenient date.[1] It did not inform the Tribunal it would not attend the adjourned hearing. The Tribunal attempted to call Premila on the day of the hearing without success.[2] Premila has now applied for leave to appeal the Tribunal’s orders made in its absence.

    [1]Letter Evans Brandon Family Lawyers dated 10 September 2020; Decision dated 11 September 2020.

    [2]Transcript dated 23…

Continue reading Premila Pty Ltd v Monaghan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Premila Pty Ltd v Monaghan [2021] QCATA 86
Case
[2021] QCATA 86
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Premila Pty Ltd sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that dismissed its application for review. The dispute involved a determination by the AAT that found the company had not met the criteria for a favourable outcome. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with assessing the application for leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant had established that the AAT’s decision involved an error of law and whether the error was such that it warranted the grant of leave to appeal to correct a substantial injustice. The appellant argued that the AAT had made a series of errors in law, including a failure to observe natural justice by not allowing the appellant and its lawyer to attend the hearing. The appellant also contended that the AAT had awarded more than the amount sought in the application, which was an error of law.

The court found that the AAT had indeed erred in law by not allowing the appellant and its representative to attend the hearing, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The court also accepted that the AAT had awarded more than the amount requested by the appellant, which was another error of law. The court concluded that these errors warranted the grant of leave to appeal as they had resulted in a substantial injustice to the appellant. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the AAT’s decision, and remitted the matter for rehearing before a differently constituted Tribunal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal granted.

2. The appeal is allowed.

3. The Tribunal’s orders of 23 October 2020 are set aside.

4. The application is remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted Tribunal.

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.