Smith v Nelson

Case [2023] QCATA 51

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Smith v Nelson  [2023] QCATA 51

PARTIES:
DANIEL DAVID SMITH 

(applicant/appellant)

v
KAREN NICOLE NELSON

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL076-22

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDQ177-21 (Beenleigh)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

24 April 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lember

ORDERS:

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL TRIBNAL THAT:

1.     Leave to appeal granted.

2.     Appeal allowed.

3.     The decision of 23 February 2022 is set aside.

4.     The proceedings are remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for rehearing.

THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL DIRECTS THAT:

1.     If Karen Nicole Nelson is an undischarged bankrupt, she must produce evidence of bankruptcy and contact details for her trustee in bankruptcy to the Tribunal’s Beenleigh registry by 22 May 2023 so that further directions can be made by the Tribunal in that registry prior to the rehearing.  

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – where applicant applied for leave to appeal – where Tribunal suggested a settlement outcome on record during the hearing and made a consent order based on that suggestion – where consent order made in circumstances where natural justice was denied – where denial of natural justice is an error of law – where a party may be bankrupt

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 185K, s 185LA

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 28, s 32, s 143, Schedule 3

Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Ltd v Hills [2014] HCA 14; 307 ALR 512

Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1954) 93 CLR 546
Baldwin v Von Knorring [2015] QCATA 107
Bradshaw v Whitcombe [2017] QCATA 132
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Chaudhary v Chaudhary [2017] NSWCA 222
Critchley v Isabel [2021] QCATA 23
Davis v Gray [2018] QCATA 147
Guzman v Bird [2021] QCAT 100
McWilliam v Australian College of Information Technology Ltd [2021] QCATA 38
Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul [1987] HCA 5; 162 CLR 221
Pearce & Anor v Body Corporate for Riparian Plaza Apartments CTS 34665 [2012] QCAT 72
QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41
Ritson v Ryan [2021] QCATA 10
Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Pty Ltd [2001] 208 CLR 516

Yang & Anor v Wellcamp Properties Pty Ltd [2018] QCATA 161

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

What is this application about?

  1. On 23 February 2022 a decision was made by consent in the Tribunal’s minor civil dispute (MCD) jurisdiction ordering Ms Nelson to pay Mr Smith the sum of $10,000 by instalments of $50 per week until that sum was paid in full. Upon default of an instalment payment, the full amount would become payable immediately.

  2. The question for the Appeal Tribunal is whether Mr Smith’s consent to the order was…

Continue reading Smith v Nelson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Smith v Nelson [2023] QCATA 51
Case
[2023] QCATA 51
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal tribunal was tasked with deciding an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The applicant, Smith, sought to appeal a decision made on 23 February 2022, which involved a dispute over the suggestion of a settlement outcome by the Tribunal during the hearing. The Tribunal subsequently made a consent order based on this suggestion. Smith argued that the Tribunal’s suggestion of a settlement outcome was made in circumstances where natural justice was denied, constituting an error of law.

The primary legal issue was whether the Tribunal's suggestion of a settlement outcome, which led to a consent order, was made in a manner that denied natural justice. This denial of natural justice was argued to be an error of law that warranted an appeal. The applicant contended that the Tribunal’s suggestion of a settlement outcome was improper as it did not provide both parties with an opportunity to respond to the suggestion, thereby denying them natural justice. The Tribunal had to determine whether this denial of natural justice constituted a sufficient ground for allowing an appeal.

The tribunal found that the suggestion of a settlement outcome by the Tribunal, and the subsequent consent order, did indeed constitute a denial of natural justice. The tribunal held that this denial of natural justice was an error of law, providing a sufficient ground for the grant of leave to appeal. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of 23 February 2022, and remitted the proceedings to a differently constituted Tribunal for rehearing. Additionally, the tribunal directed that if the respondent, Nelson, was an undischarged bankrupt, she must provide evidence of bankruptcy and contact details for her trustee in bankruptcy to the Tribunal’s Beenleigh registry by 22 May 2023, to allow for further directions to be made prior to the rehearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL TRIBNAL THAT:

1. Leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. The decision of 23 February 2022 is set aside.

4. The proceedings are remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for rehearing.

THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL DIRECTS THAT:

1. If Karen Nicole Nelson is an undischarged bankrupt, she must produce evidence of bankruptcy and contact details for her trustee in bankruptcy to the Tribunal’s Beenleigh registry by 22 May 2023 so that further directions can be made by the Tribunal in that registry prior to the rehearing.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.