Radovic v Treasury Casino Brisbane - [2018] QCAT 41

CITATION:	Radovic v Treasury Casino Brisbane [2018] QCAT 41
PARTIES:	June Radovic (Applicant)
v
Treasury Casino Brisbane (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	GAR305-17
MATTER TYPE:	General administrative review matters
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Cranwell
DELIVERED ON:	15 February 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	1. The application for an extension of time is refused. 2. The application to review a decision is therefore dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – application to extend time for leave to appeal PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TIME, EXTENSION AND ABRIDGMENT – where the applicant filed an application to review a decision out of time – where the applicant filed an application for an extension of time – whether application for an extension of time should be granted Casino Control Act 1982 (Qld), s 91A, s 92 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 61 Cardillo v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCAT 574 Coppens v Water Wise Design Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 309 Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor [2001] QCAT 229

APPEARANCES:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 7 April 2016, the Treasury Casino Brisbane issued Ms Radovic with a written notice that she was excluded from the Treasury Brisbane and Jupiters Gold Coast (now known as the Star Gold Coast) casinos. The exclusion was made under s 92 of the Casino Control Act 1982 (Qld) (‘the Casino Control Act’).
Section 91A(3) of the Casino Control Act provides:
Also, a person receiving a direction in writing pursuant to section 92 prohibiting the person from entering or remaining in a casino may apply, within 3 months after the day the person receives the direction and as otherwise provided under the QCAT Act, to the tribunal for a review of the direction.
On 19 October 2017, Ms Radovic filed an application to review the decision with the Tribunal. The application was filed out of time, so Ms Radovic also filed an application for an extension of time.
Section 61 of the QCAT Act gives the Tribunal power to extend a time limit fixed for the start of a proceeding. The Tribunal cannot extend time if to do so would cause prejudice or detriment to a party or potential party to a proceeding, not able to be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or damages.
The relevant factors to be considered by the Tribunal in exercising its discretion to grant an extension of time were summarised in Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor:[1]
a)Whether a satisfactory explanation (or “good reason”) is shown to account for the delay.
b)The strength of the case the applicant wishes to bring (assuming it is possible for some view on this to be formed on the preliminary material).
c)Prejudice to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Radovic v Treasury Casino Brisbane and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] QCAT 41
Decision Date: 15 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a party, Mr Radovic, who sought to extend the time limit for applying for leave to appeal a decision made by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The dispute centred on whether the tribunal should grant an extension of time, which would allow the applicant to challenge a decision that was made out of time. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which had to determine the legal issues arising from the application.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether the application for an extension of time should be granted. This involved assessing whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying the delay in filing the application. The tribunal also had to consider whether the applicant had acted with due diligence and whether the extension would cause any prejudice to the opposing party. These considerations were pivotal in determining whether the application should succeed.

In its decision, the tribunal thoroughly examined the circumstances surrounding the delay and the reasons provided by the applicant for the extension. The tribunal found that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time. Furthermore, it was determined that the applicant had not acted with due diligence in pursuing the application, and that the grant of an extension would likely cause prejudice to the opposing party. Consequently, the tribunal refused the application for an extension of time, and the application to review the decision was dismissed.

The tribunal's final orders were that the application for an extension of time was refused, and as a result, the application to review the decision was dismissed. The tribunal's decision underscores the importance of adhering to time limits in legal proceedings and the stringent criteria required to justify extensions in such contexts.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for an extension of time is refused.

2. The application to review a decision is therefore dismissed.

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.