Rowe v Emmanuel Education Ltd t/as Emmanuel College
[2013] QCATA 174
•28 May 2013
| CITATION: | Rowe v Emmanuel Education Ltd t/as Emmanuel College [2013] QCATA 174 |
| PARTIES: | Mr Chad Everett Rowe (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| Emmanuel Education Ltd t/as Emmanuel College (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL128-13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Peta Stilgoe, Senior Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 28 May 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Chad Rowe’s application to stay the decision dated 27 March 2013 for Southport claim 51637/12 is refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where for non-publication order – where appeal against non-publication order – where application for stay of non-publication order pending hearing of appeal |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
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 27 March 2013, a Senior Member made a non-publication order about documents filed in a minor civil dispute. Mr Rowe has appealed that decision. He also seeks an order staying the order. Effectively, Mr Rowe wants the right to publish material until the appeal on the order preventing publication has been heard.
Mr Rowe says that the learned Senior Member did not give him procedural fairness because she made the decision before he responded to the College’s submissions. He says that the learned Senior Member made her decision behind closed doors. He says that the learned Senior Member exhibited bias by pre-judging the issue in a decision of 22 March 2013.
On 22 March 2013, the learned Senior Member made an interim decision to prohibit publication until the parties had filed submissions and she, or another Member, had an opportunity to consider those submissions. That approach was entirely appropriate. The learned Senior Member wanted to preserve the status quo until the parties had made proper submissions after time to consider the application.
For the same reason, I will not stay the learned Senior Member’s decision of 27 March 2013 pending the hearing of the appeal. Mr Rowe cannot point to any detriment he may suffer by the delay in publication. If he is successful, he will be able to publish that material in due course.
By contrast, if Mr Rowe is allowed to publish pending the appeal, then the College would have lost any protection from the order and the appeal would be otiose.
The learned Senior Member considered the submissions of both parties in making her decision of 27 March 2013. She did not consider Mr Rowe’s submissions in reply but her directions of 22 March 2013 made it clear that she would not do so. The learned Senior Member intended to, and did, make her decision on the basis of Mr Rowe’s original submissions and the College’s response to those submissions.
It is usual for the Tribunal to decide interim questions on the papers. The learned Senior Member signalled her intention to do so in the directions of 22 March 2013. There is no basis for suggesting that the learned Senior Member made her decision “behind closed doors”.
The learned Senior Member did not pre-judge the issue in her decision of 22 March 2013. As I have already indicted, she preserved the status quo pending submissions. She considered the submissions of both parties in making her decision. The mere fact that the two decisions are the same is not, by itself, evidence of bias.
A stay of the learned Senior Member’s decision pending the outcome of the appeal is refused.
0
0
0