Saxer v Hume

[2022] QCATA 25

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Saxer v Hume [2022] QCATA 25

PARTIES:

SARAH SAXER

(applicant/appellant)

v

TROY HUME
AMY SCHNEILLINGER

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL363-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCD 1/20 Nanango

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

2 March 2022

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal from the decision of the Tribunal on 9 November 2020 refused. 

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – jurisdiction – minor civil dispute – no jurisdiction for specific performance of contract or for declaration

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 11, s 13(2), s 52(2), Schedule 3

Drew v Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 219 Gerhardt v Hanlon [2011] QCATA 356
Hashfield v Gold Coast City Council [2020] QCATA 36
Kellogg v Board of Trustees the Ipswich Girls’ Grammar School [2011] QCATA 210
Right v Burrett [2020] QCATA 71

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: 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

1. This is an application for leave to appeal from the decision of a Member[1] of the Tribunal who, on 9 November 2020, dismissed the appellant’s application on the ground that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to decide it.  The application for leave to appeal was filed on 1 December 2020, and the appellant on 19 March 2021 filed a statutory declaration repeating the grounds set out in the application.  The respondents have not filed any submissions, despite an extension of time to do so. 

   [1]An Acting Magistrate sitting as a Member under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“the QCAT Act”) s 171(2).

2. Because this matter was a minor civil dispute, leave is required to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal.[2]  As a general proposition, when leave to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal is required, it will be granted only where there is a reasonable argument that the decision was attended by error and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice caused by that error, or where the appeal raises a question of general importance upon which further argument and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal would be to the public advantage.[3] In deciding whether grounds for leave to appeal have been shown, it is relevant to consider that the proceeding was a minor civil dispute, and the obligation on the Tribunal was to make orders it considered to be fair and equitable to the parties to the proceeding in order to resolve the dispute: the QCAT Act s 13(1). The Tribunal was also required to comply with the QCAT Act s 28 and s 29.

   [2]The QCAT Act s 142(3)(a)(i). 

   [3]Crime and Corruption Commission v Lee [2019] QCATA 38 at [12], citing appellate authority. See also Campbell v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCATA 34 at [17].

Background

1. The material filed by…