RSMC v RMNS and Anor - [2021] QCATA 52

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

RSMC v RMNS & Anor [2021] QCATA 52

PARTIES: RSMC

(applicant/appellant)

v

RMNS

(first respondent)

THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF QUEENSLAND

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL302-17

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

G33546

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

13 May 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Daubney, President

ORDERS:

1.   The application for miscellaneous matters dated 24 July 2018 seeking the transfer of APL302-17 to the Court of Appeal is dismissed.

2.   The Applicant and the First Respondent shall file in the Tribunal and serve on the Second Respondent any evidence and written submissions relied on to show cause why the application for leave to appeal or appeal ought not be struck out, by 4:00pm on 28 May 2021.

3.   The Second Respondent shall file in the Tribunal and serve on the Applicant and the First Respondent any evidence and written submissions in response, by 4:00pm on 11 June 2021.

4.   Unless requested by either party, the question whether the proceeding ought be dismissed shall be determined on the papers.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – STATUTORY APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS TO COURTS – where applicant sought appointment of administrator – where applicant filed application for leave to appeal or appeal against interlocutory decision made in primary application – where applicant filed applications seeking that the appeal be transferred to the Court of Appeal – where President may transfer appeal to the Court of Appeal with the court’s leave – whether appeal could be more effectively or conveniently dealt with by the Court of Appeal – whether it would be appropriate for the appeal to be transferred to the Court of Appeal

Guardianship and Administration Act2000 (Qld), s 26,
s 122

Public Trustee Act 1978 (Qld), s 138

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld), s 28, s 46, s 47, s 121, s 142, s 143, s 144, s 150, s 156

Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531

Lee v Crime and Corruption Commission; Crime and Corruption Commission v Lee [2020] QCA 201
Pivovarova v Michelsen [2019] QCA 256

Prestige & Rich Pty Ltd & Anor v Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Office of Fair Trading & Anor [2021] QCA 58

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

First Respondent:

Second Respondent:

Self-represented

Southport PTQ i/b The Public Trustee of Queensland

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

This matter has its genesis in an application brought in this Tribunal in 2016 for orders under the Guardianship and Administration Act2000 (Qld) (“GAA”). The adult in question, Mrs RDDM has since died, but there is still an appeal on foot in respect of a decision made in the course of the application.
Mrs RDDM had two sons – the Applicant and the First Respondent.
On 4 September 2012, Mrs RDDM made an Enduring Power…

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 RSMC v RMNS and Anor 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: [2021] QCATA 52
Decision Date: 13 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In RSMC v RMNS and Anor, the applicant sought to have an administrator appointed and filed an application for leave to appeal or an appeal against an interlocutory decision in the primary application. The applicant subsequently filed applications for the appeal to be transferred to the Court of Appeal. The President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has the power to transfer an appeal to the Court of Appeal with the court’s leave, and the court must consider whether the appeal could be more effectively or conveniently dealt with by the Court of Appeal and whether it would be appropriate for the appeal to be transferred. The AAT dismissed the application to transfer the appeal, finding that the matters raised did not warrant a transfer to the Court of Appeal. The court ordered the applicant and the first respondent to file evidence and written submissions to show cause why the application for leave to appeal or the appeal should not be struck out, and the second respondent to file a response. Unless requested by either party, the court would determine whether the proceeding should be dismissed on the papers.

The legal issues before the court involved the power of the President of the AAT to transfer an appeal to the Court of Appeal, and the criteria for determining whether an appeal should be transferred. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and previous case law, and found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the appeal could be more effectively or conveniently dealt with by the Court of Appeal or that it would be appropriate for the appeal to be transferred. The court also considered the interests of justice and the efficiency of the administrative law system in making its decision. The applicant's applications to transfer the appeal were dismissed, and the court ordered the parties to file evidence and written submissions on the merits of the appeal. The court emphasised that the decision to transfer an appeal to the Court of Appeal was not to be taken lightly, and that the criteria for transfer were stringent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for miscellaneous matters dated 24 July 2018 seeking the transfer of APL302-17 to the Court of Appeal is dismissed.

2. The Applicant and the First Respondent shall file in the Tribunal and serve on the Second Respondent any evidence and written submissions relied on to show cause why the application for leave to appeal or appeal ought not be struck out, by 4:00pm on 28 May 2021.

3. The Second Respondent shall file in the Tribunal and serve on the Applicant and the First Respondent any evidence and written submissions in response, by 4:00pm on 11 June 2021.

4. Unless requested by either party, the question whether the proceeding ought be dismissed shall be determined on the papers.

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.

CITATION:	RSMC v RMNS & Anor [2021] QCATA 52
PARTIES:	RSMC
(applicant/appellant)
v
RMNS
(first respondent)
THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF QUEENSLAND
(second respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL302-17
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	G33546
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	13 May 2021
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Justice Daubney, President
ORDERS:	1. The application for miscellaneous matters dated 24 July 2018 seeking the transfer of APL302-17 to the Court of Appeal is dismissed. 2. The Applicant and the First Respondent shall file in the Tribunal and serve on the Second Respondent any evidence and written submissions relied on to show cause why the application for leave to appeal or appeal ought not be struck out, by 4:00pm on 28 May 2021. 3. The Second Respondent shall file in the Tribunal and serve on the Applicant and the First Respondent any evidence and written submissions in response, by 4:00pm on 11 June 2021. 4. Unless requested by either party, the question whether the proceeding ought be dismissed shall be determined on the papers.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – STATUTORY APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS TO COURTS – where applicant sought appointment of administrator – where applicant filed application for leave to appeal or appeal against interlocutory decision made in primary application – where applicant filed applications seeking that the appeal be transferred to the Court of Appeal – where President may transfer appeal to the Court of Appeal with the court’s leave – whether appeal could be more effectively or conveniently dealt with by the Court of Appeal – whether it would be appropriate for the appeal to be transferred to the Court of Appeal Guardianship and Administration Act2000 (Qld), s 26, s 122 Public Trustee Act 1978 (Qld), s 138 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld), s 28, s 46, s 47, s 121, s 142, s 143, s 144, s 150, s 156 Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531 Lee v Crime and Corruption Commission; Crime and Corruption Commission v Lee [2020] QCA 201 Pivovarova v Michelsen [2019] QCA 256 Prestige & Rich Pty Ltd & Anor v Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Office of Fair Trading & Anor [2021] QCA 58
REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
First Respondent: Second Respondent:	Self-represented Southport PTQ i/b The Public Trustee of Queensland
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)