Roberts v Queensland Building Services Authority

[2013] QCATA 213

CITATION:  Roberts v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCATA 213

PARTIES:	Mr Bryan Cyril Roberts (Applicant/Appellant)
V
Queensland Building Services Authority (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL107-13

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: C Roney, Member

DELIVERED ON: 26 July 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – leave to extend time for appeal

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, s 143

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. The Applicant brings an Application for an extension of time dated 22 April, 2013 within which to lodge an Appeal from QCAT’s decision in GAR178-10 dated 28 March, 2012.

1. The Applicant accepts, and it is plain to see, the time to lodge an Appeal under the Act has passed some time ago (a period of 28 days – s143 of the QCAT Act.)

1. The delay, contends the Applicant, is explained by illness which impacted upon the operation of his business.  He says also, the performance of work in accordance with the decision and the difficulties encountered with that work have caused him more latterly to become aware that an appeal of the original decision is appropriate.

1. He also argues, that there is an important natural justice issue for him, namely the failure of his written submissions to come to the attention of the presiding member before the delivery of her reasons of judgment on the 28 March, 2012.

1. In determining this application I have had regard to the following factors:

1.     The delay, the explanation for it, and the potential for prejudice to be occasioned to the QBSA.

2.     Whether in all the circumstances of the matter, it would be fair, justice and reasonable to grant the application, and

3.     Whether any appeal has merit.

1. The delay for filing the application for leave to extend time is not adequately explained.

1. The Applicant became aware when he received the reasons for decision that his submissions had not been received by the presiding member.  She says this is her judgement.  A reasonable litigant in his position would have raised this issue much earlier with the Tribunal and lodged an appeal on that basis.  I accept that he wrote to the Tribunal to complain about this, but I consider, acting reasonably, he should have then brought an appeal.

1. On its face there would appear to be a natural justice concern for the applicant.  However in fact, this is not the case.  His submission, which I have read, would not have, in my view, impacted upon the presiding members findings, such as to cause her to reach a different outcome.  I have read the learned Member’s reasons for decision.  The submission is not compelling in a legal or practical sense.  The member has made findings of credit against Mr Roberts which he seeks to revisit.  These findings, on my review of this matter, cannot be the subject of an Appeal.

1. This application is one afflicted by unexplained delay and without substantive merit.  It therefore fails.

1. I decline to extend time to appeal.  I dismiss the application.  I decline to make an order for costs for this application.  The applicant was entitled to have a judicial consideration of his submissions.  This has now occurred.  It is not appropriate that he bear the costs of doing so.