Stella v Griffith University - [2024] QCATA 142

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Stella v Griffith University [2024] QCATA 142

PARTIES:

RICHARD JOSEPH STELLA

(applicant/appellant)

v

GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL048-24

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

OCL053-23

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

25 July 2024

HEARING DATE:

25 July 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Fitzpatrick

ORDERS:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

HUMAN RIGHTS – PRIVACY LEGISLATION

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – WHAT IS – DISTINCTION BETWEEN QUESTION OF LAW AND QUESTION OF FACT

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – MATTERS OF PROCEDURE – INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS – where information privacy matter referred to the Tribunal – where interlocutory order of the Tribunal refusing an application for production of documents appealed – where multiple information privacy complaints are before the Tribunal – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to order production of documents not strictly relevant to the complaint subject to the appeal – whether Tribunal erred by not taking into account appellant’s reply submissions

Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) ss 23(3), 23(5), 166, 167, 168, 171, 176, sch 3 item 11(1)(a)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 28(3), 143(3)(a)(i)

Abbott v QBCC [2021] QCATA 145

Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170
Gobus v Cairns Hinterland Hospital and Health Service & Ors [2018] QCATA 121
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Marshall-Holst v Office of the Information Commissioner and Queensland Health (Metro North Hospital and Health Service) [2017] QCATA 28
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

Toogood v Cassowary Coast Regional Council [2018] QCAT 319

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

On 10 January 2024 an application filed by the applicant Mr Stella for production of documents was refused. Reasons for the decision were given on 12 January 2024. An application for leave to appeal or appeal was subsequently filed.
The appeal tribunal directed that the question of whether leave to appeal should be granted be determined as a preliminary issue. That question will now be determined.

Leave to appeal

The decision the subject of the application for leave to appeal or appeal is an interlocutory decision. By s 143(3)(a)(ii) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) leave to appeal is required before an appeal can be determined.[1]
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 143(3)(a)(i) (‘QCAT Act’).
Leave to appeal will only be granted where an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant and there is a reasonable argument that there is an error to be corrected.[2]
[2]Gobus v…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Stella v Griffith University

Details

AGLC: Stella v Griffith University [2024] QCATA 142
Case: [2024] QCATA 142
Decision Date: 25 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stella v Griffith University involved the appellant challenging a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The dispute centred around an interlocutory order made by QCAT which refused an application for the production of certain documents in the context of an information privacy complaint. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant, Stella, argued that QCAT erred in its decision by not considering her reply submissions and by making an order for the production of documents that were not strictly relevant to the complaint that was the subject of the appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether QCAT had jurisdiction to order the production of documents that were not strictly relevant to the complaint being appealed, and whether QCAT had erred by failing to take into account the appellant's reply submissions. The court had to determine whether the order made by QCAT constituted an error of law, and if so, whether this error warranted the interference of the appellate court. The court also considered the distinction between questions of law and questions of fact, and the appropriate scope of appellate review in this context.

In its reasoning, the court found that QCAT did not err in its jurisdictional determination, as it had the authority to order the production of documents relevant to the broader context of the complaints before it. The court also held that QCAT had not failed to consider the appellant’s reply submissions, as the submissions were adequately addressed in the decision. The court concluded that the order made by QCAT was not an error of law, and therefore, the appeal was without merit. The appeal was dismissed, and no orders were made in favour of the appellant.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

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.