Stella v Griffith University - [2025] QCAT 469

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Stella v Griffith University [2025] QCAT 469

PARTIES:

RICHARD JOSEPH STELLA

(Applicant)

v

GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY

(First respondent)

CHRISTOPHER FLEMING

(Second respondent)

ANDREAS CHAI

(Third respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

REO011-25

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO:

ADL074-24

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matter

DELIVERED ON:

17 November 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Traves

ORDERS:

1. The application for reopening filed on 22 April 2025 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – REOPENING – where application to reopen interlocutory decision directing the production of documents - whether reopening ground exists – whether final decision – where later Appeal Tribunal decision on which application based made under different statutory regime – whether application for reopening should be granted

Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld)

Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 62, s 129, s 136, s 137, s 138, s 138A, s 139, s 140, s 141, Schedule 3

AL Builders Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority & ors [2012] QCAT 559

DA Radic Pty Ltd v Colagrande & ors [2016] QCAT 357
Elks v Aitken Whyte Lawyers Pty Ltd [2024] QCAT 123
Stella v Griffith University [2025] QCA 203
Stella v Griffith University [2025] QCATA 20
Toogood v Cassowary Coast Regional Council [2018] QCAT 319

Urquhart v Body Corporate for Circle on Cavill CTS 39918 [2013] QCAT 241

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

McCullough Robertson

REASONS FOR DECISION

The matter before me is an Application for reopening filed by the respondents on 22 April 2025.[1] The decision the application seeks to reopen was the making of orders for production of certain documents by Griffith University. I made the orders in the proceeding brought by Mr Stella against the respondents, which allege discrimination against him in the area of education on the basis of the protected attributes of political belief or activity and race (ADL074-24).
[1]A reopening file (REO011-25) was created by the registry. In REO011-25 the applicants are Griffith University, Christopher Fleming and Andreas Chai and the respondent is Richard Stella. I have adopted the file name designations of the original file (ADL074-24).
The decision to allow an Application for a notice to produce filed by Mr Stella was made on 26 March 2025 in the following terms:
1. The application for a notice to produce filed by Richard Stella on 21 August 2024 is allowed in the following terms:
(a) Griffith University produce the documents in the following categories, as described in Annexure A to this Order, to Richard Stella:
a.        incident one documents;
b.        incident two and three documents;
c.        incident four documents; and
d.        incident five documents, by:
4:00pm on 18 April 2025.
2. The application in respect of the category described as ‘race discrimination documents’ is refused.
The documents were…

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 [2025] QCAT 469
Case: [2025] QCAT 469
Decision Date: 17 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Stella v Griffith University concerned an application by the appellant, Stella, to reopen an interlocutory decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) that directed the production of documents. The application to reopen was based on a subsequent decision of an Appeal Tribunal under a different statutory regime. The respondent, Griffith University, opposed the application, arguing it was not permitted under the statutory scheme. The case was heard in QCAT and the legal issues involved the interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the reopening of decisions and the timeliness of appeals following such reopening.

The court examined whether the application to reopen constituted a ground under the statute and whether the interlocutory decision from which the reopening was sought could be considered a final decision. The court also considered whether the later Appeal Tribunal decision, which formed the basis of the reopening application, was made under a different statutory regime, thereby impacting the validity of the reopening application. The court found that the interlocutory decision was not a final decision as it did not finally decide the matters subject to the proceeding. Moreover, the subsequent Appeal Tribunal decision was made under a different statutory regime, which further undermined the validity of the reopening application.

In dismissing the application for reopening, the court held that the interlocutory decision was not a final decision and therefore could not be the subject of a reopening application. Additionally, the court ruled that the Appeal Tribunal decision, being made under a different statutory regime, did not constitute a valid ground for reopening the interlocutory decision. Consequently, the application to reopen was dismissed.

The final order of the court was that the application for reopening filed on 22 April 2025 was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for reopening filed on 22 April 2025 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

The effect of a decision to reopen is set out in s 140 which provides:140 Effect of decision to reopen(1) If, under section 139, the tribunal decides a proceeding should be reopened, the tribunal must decide the issues in the proceeding that must be heard and decided again.(2) The issues must be heard and decided by way of a fresh hearing on the merits, and subsection (1) does not prevent the tribunal from hearing and deciding other related issues in the proceeding.(3) The hearing and deciding of the issues and any related issues are taken to be a part of the original proceeding.(4) The tribunal may—(a) confirm or amend the tribunal’s previous final decision in the proceeding; or(b) set aside the tribunal’s previous final decision in the proceeding and substitute a new decision.(5) For this Act or an enabling Act, the decision of the tribunal as confirmed, amended or substituted under subsection (4) is the tribunal’s final decision in the proceeding.(6) The proceeding can not be reopened again under this division. “Final decision”, of the Tribunal in a proceeding is defined, relevantly, to mean “the tribunal’s decision that finally decides the matters the subject of the proceeding.[13][13]Schedule 3. Section 141 provides:141 No appeal until application finally dealt with(1) This section applies if a party to a proceeding has made an application under section 138 about the tribunal’s final decision in the proceeding.(2) An appeal, or an application for leave to appeal, against the final decision can not be made until the application under section 138 is finally dealt with under this division. If an application has been made for reopening pursuant to s 138 ‘about the tribunal’s final decision in the proceeding’, an application for leave to appeal or appeal cannot be made until the application for reopening is finally dealt with under Division 7. Final decision relevantly ‘means the tribunal’s decision that finally decides the matters the subject of the proceeding’.[14] [14]QCAT Act, sch 3 (definition of ‘final decision’). Any appeal or application for leave to appeal must be made within the appeal period. By s 143(5)(b) the relevant day commencing the 28 day appeal period starts after the day the person applying for reopening is advised of the reopening decision. For present purposes, it is noted that s 143(5) does not limit the right of a person to appeal following a reopening application to a person whose reopening application was successful (and therefore, followed by a rehearing of relevant issues on the merits). Therefore, if a reopening is granted, an application for leave to appeal or appeal may not be made until after rehearing of the relevant issues on the merits as provided for in s 140. If the reopening application is refused, the final decision of the Tribunal must be the decision made by it before the reopening application was made (and which was sought to be disturbed as a consequence of the reopening application).

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.