Schatz v Kamalanathan
[2023] QCATA 48
•21 April 2023
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Schatz & Anor v Kamalanathan [2023] QCATA 48
PARTIES:
ANDREAS SCHATZ AND BETH EDMONDS (applicant/appellant)
v
PRIYANEELA KAMALANATHAN (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
APL070-22
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:
MCDO232-22
MATTER TYPE:
Appeals
DELIVERED ON:
21 April 2023
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member WA Isdale
ORDERS:
Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where the Tribunal made orders involving a dividing fence dispute – where a non-publication order was made and the respondent was permitted to have legal representation – where the appellants seek leave to appeal the decision because the Tribunal did not provide reasons – whether an appeal is necessary when the principle matter has already been determined
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
This is a proposed appeal against a decision by an adjudicator who made orders in a matter involving a dividing fence dispute. The orders were to prevent publication of specified matters relating to the dispute and to permit the respondent to be legally represented in that matter.
The applicants have applied for leave to appeal that decision. The application was filed on 5 April 2022.
An adjournment of the principal matter, the dividing fence dispute, was also sought so that the appeal could be determined first.
The application to adjourn the hearing of the principal matter in dispute was not granted and it was heard on 7 July 2022. The transcript of the Hearing occupies only five pages.
The adjudicator found that the dispute was not within the jurisdiction conferred by law and accordingly made an order that the application, the substantive matter, was dismissed.[1]
[1] T1-3, 36-37.
The dispute in which the orders now being considered were made, was fully determined on 7 July 2022 by the order which has just been referred to. There was no jurisdiction to be exercised in the principal matter.
Accordingly, there would be no utility whatsoever in there being leave granted to appeal the orders made in the process of dealing with the principal matter in dispute, since it has already been fully dealt with to the extent that this tribunal is permitted to do so. It has jurisdiction, but only to determine whether it has jurisdiction. That having been determined in the negative, no more can be done.
In the absence of full arguments on the subject of whether there is now any jurisdiction to consider the application for leave to appeal, that question need not be decided in order to properly dispose of the present application. It is sufficient to decide that leave should not be granted on the basis of the reasons already given; that is that there would be no utility in granting leave to appeal the orders made within a matter which has itself been fully and finally determined. To do so would amount only to an advisory opinion in a theoretical case and an unjustified waste of resources provided at public expense.
Order
Application refused.
0
0
0