Sanadee Enterprises Pty Ltd t/as Totalspan Capalaba v Debruine t/as Sunshine Erections

[2013] QCATA 114

CITATION: Sanadee Enterprises Pty Ltd t/as Totalspan Capalaba v Debruine t/as Sunshine Erections [2013] QCATA 114

PARTIES:	Sanadee Enterprises Pty Ltd t/as Totalspan Capalaba (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Mr Paul Debruine t/as Sunshine Erections (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL405-12

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 15 April 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The application for an extension of time is refused.

2.    The application for leave to appeal is struck out.

CATCHWORDS:

MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where delay in filing application for leave to appeal  - where application for reopening unsuccessful – where reasons for decision requested late – whether grounds to allow extension of time to file application for leave

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s4(b), s 139(5), s 143(3), s 143(5)

Manson v Collins [2010] QCATA 63

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. In June 2010, Sanadee Enterprises Pty Ltd t/as Totalspan Capalaba engaged Mr Debruine to fabricate and erect a shade structure at Cleveland Bowls Club. Sanadee did not pay the final balance of $3,894.01 for that work, so Mr Debruine filed an application in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

2. This dispute has a chequered history. The hearing has been adjourned a number of times and twice Sanadee has failed to comply with Tribunal directions or notices.

3. The learned Member finally heard the dispute on 12 March 2012. Sanadee did not attend that hearing. Mr Rubasinghe, on behalf of Sanadee applied to reopen the proceeding.  The learned Member refused his request on 3 September 2012.

4. Sanadee filed an application for leave to appeal on 23 November 2012.  An application for leave to appeal must be filed 28 days after the relevant day.[1] “relevant day” is defined as 28 days after a person is given written reasons for a decision.[2]

   [1]            Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s143(3).

   [2] QCAT Act, s143(5)(b).

5. A party has 45 days after an oral decision is given to request written reasons.[3]  Therefore, Mr Rubasinghe had until 26 April 2012 to request written reasons. The latest day on which he could file an application for leave to appeal was 21 June 2012.[4]

   [3] QCAT Act, s22.

   [4]        Manson v Collins [2010] QCATA 63.

6. In fact, Mr Rubasinghe requested reasons on 12 September 2012. The Tribunal has an obligation to encourage the early and economical resolution of disputes.[5] Sanadee is not entitled to artificially extend the time for filing an application for leave to appeal by relying on its own failure to meet Tribunal deadlines.

   [5] QCAT Act, s4(b).

7. If Sanadee’s appeal is really an appeal against the refusal to reopen. The Appeals Tribunal simply has no jurisdiction to entertain that application.[6]

   [6] QCAT Act, s139(5).

1. It seems that Sanadee chose the wrong process in applying to reopen the proceeding rather than appeal. Sanadee has not properly explained its delay in filing this application except that it first decided to apply for a reopening. Sanadee has a history of non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions. Mr Rubasinghe chose not to attend the hearing. He must bear the consequences of his decisions.

1. The application to extend the time for filing the application for leave to appeal is refused. The application for leave to appeal is struck out.