Reihana v Beenleigh Show Society

Reihana was a party to a minor civil dispute that was heard and determined by a member of the Tribunal exercising its original jurisdiction. The outcome of the dispute was not in Reihana’s favour. Reihana subsequently applied to have the decision reopened, however, the application was refused. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Reihana filed an application for leave to appeal and appeal against the Tribunal’s decision to refuse to reopen the proceedings. Reihana did not, however, file the application within the prescribed time limit. The Senior Member of the Tribunal directed Reihana to file an application for an extension of time. Reihana did not comply with this direction and instead filed an application for leave to appeal and appeal against the directions requiring Reihana to file an extension of time. The Tribunal dismissed Reihana’s application for leave to appeal and appeal. Reihana sought leave to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal from the Tribunal’s decision. The Appeal Tribunal was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear Reihana’s application for leave to appeal and appeal.

The Appeal Tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Reihana’s application for leave to appeal and appeal. The Appeal Tribunal found that Reihana’s application for leave to appeal and appeal was a second appeal and was not a direct appeal from a decision of the Tribunal exercising its original jurisdiction. The Appeal Tribunal found that the only jurisdiction that the Appeal Tribunal has to hear an application for leave to appeal and appeal from a decision of the Tribunal exercising its original jurisdiction is in relation to a direct appeal. The Appeal Tribunal found that Reihana’s application for leave to appeal and appeal was not a direct appeal and therefore it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. The Appeal Tribunal dismissed Reihana’s application for leave to appeal and appeal for want of jurisdiction.