Rush v Rockhampton Regional Council
[2013] QCAT 69
| CITATION: | Rush and Anor v Rockhampton Regional Council [2013] QCAT 69 |
| PARTIES: | Julie Rush Andrew Carll (Applicants) |
| v | |
| Rockhampton Regional Council (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAR341-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Susan Gardiner, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 29 January 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application to review the decision of the Rockhampton Regional Council is struck out. |
| CATCHWORDS: | REVIEW – Where applicants seek to review a parking decision of a Regional Council – Where no enabling Act giving QCAT review jurisdiction – Where application struck out |
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 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Ms Rush and Dr Carll filed an application to review a decision about parking in Frenchville Road Rockhampton made by the Rockhampton Regional Council on 14 August 2102. On that date the Council endorsed and adopted the recommendations of the Council’s Infrastructure Committee dated 8 August 2012.
The issue to be determined is if QCAT has jurisdiction to hear this review.
Both parties were directed to provide submissions on this matter in a direction of the Tribunal dated 2 November 2012. Ms Rush and Dr Carll provided submissions on 15 November 2012. The Rockhampton Regional Council provided no submissions of any assistance regarding jurisdiction, only a copy of the original council decision.
Does QCAT have jurisdiction?
QCAT is a creature of statute. Jurisdiction is conferred by an enabling Act. Specifically in relation to reviews, s 17 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 states that QCAT’s review jurisdiction is the jurisdiction conferred by an enabling Act to review a decision.
Neither Ms Rush and Dr Carll nor the Council have referred me to an enabling Act.
In a the letter to Ms Rush and Dr Carll dated 2 October 2012, the Council Chief Executive Officer, Mr Pardon advised ‘Should you wish to further appeal this decision I would advise that you may have a right of administrative review through the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations (Ombudsman).’
Ms Rush and Dr Carll admit in their submissions that ‘Council have no other publically available appeals process for their decisions. Other than requesting a Judicial Review on points of law, or other criteria such as bias, there is no other process for the Applicants to partake in.’
Both sides are right in this regard. There is no Act conferring a right of review of the Council’s decision on QCAT. Without an enabling Act, QCAT has no jurisdiction to consider this review.
An order striking out an application is made under s 47 of the QCAT Act. This section allows the Tribunal to strike out an application if it considers a proceeding is misconceived or lacking in substance. For the reasons I have given I am satisfied that this current review application is misconceived and lacking in substance and the application will be struck out.
0
0
0