Sandhu v S&S TPT Pty Ltd

In the matter of Sandhu v S&S TPT Pty Ltd, the appellant, Mr Sandhu, appealed against a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The dispute between the parties involved a default decision entered in favour of S&S TPT Pty Ltd. Mr Sandhu initially applied to have the proceeding reopened, but this application was refused. He subsequently applied to have the default decision set aside, but this application was also refused. Mr Sandhu then appealed the refusal to set aside the default decision, arguing that the adjudicator had erred in finding that it was not open to him to make a second application to set aside the default decision.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the adjudicator had erred in finding that Mr Sandhu could not make a second application to set aside the default decision and whether there was any irregularity in the default decision that warranted setting it aside. The court found that the adjudicator had erred in proceeding on the basis that Mr Sandhu's earlier application for reopening was an application to set aside the default decision. The court also found that even if the earlier application for reopening was treated as an application to set aside the default decision, there was no impediment to Mr Sandhu bringing the subsequent application. The adjudicator had erred in finding otherwise.

The court set aside the decision made on 12 April 2023 and allowed the application to set aside the default decision filed on 1 March 2023. The decision by default entered on 22 December 2022 was also set aside, and the proceeding was remitted to the Tribunal. The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The court found that the adjudicator had given reasons for refusing the application to set aside the default decision, but the adjudicator had identified an irregularity in the default decision and declined to set it aside. The adjudicator observed in obiter remarks that it was open to Mr Sandhu to appeal the reopening decision and that 'it may be' that a component of S&S's claim was beyond the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The adjudicator expressed no concluded view on this issue.