TA v Chadi - [2021] QCATA 153

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

TA v Chadi [2021] QCATA 153

PARTIES:

TA

(applicant/appellant)

v

ADAM CHADI

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL002-21

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO:

ADL059-19

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

30 November 2021

HEARING DATE:

4 August 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Howard

ORDERS:

1. The application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal or appeal is refused.

2. Until further order, other than to the parties to the proceeding, the Appeal Tribunal’s reasons for decision may be published in a de-identified format only.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN REFUSED – where an applicant did not file the application for leave to appeal or appeal within 28 days after the day on which the parties were given written reasons for the decision – where an application for extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal or appeal was considered – where the applicant’s reasons for not filing the application for leave to appeal or appeal within 28 days after the relevant day were considered – where the merits of the appeal were considered – whether granting an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal or appeal was prejudicial against the respondent – whether granting an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal or appeal was in the interests of justice – where an application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal or appeal was refused

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 38

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142, s 142(1), s 143(3), s 143(4), s 143(5)(c)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Regulation 2019 (Qld), reg 10(4), reg 10(5), reg 10(6)(c)

Aon Risk Services Pty Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175

Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman [2011] QCAT 229, [9]

ReevevHamlyn [2015] QCATA 133, [35], [36]

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 24 November 2020, the Tribunal in proceeding ADL059-19 dismissed TA’s complaint of victimisation under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The Tribunal also refused a number of other applications, including: an application by Mr Chadi to exclude an audio recording; an application by TA to transfer allegations he had made to the Queensland Police Service; and applications for costs by both parties. The Tribunal also declined to deal with an application by TA which sought for Mr Chadi to be punished for contempt.
On 5 February 2021, TA filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal in respect of the Tribunal’s decision. That said, I acknowledge that TA attempted on several occasions in December 2020 and January 2021 to file the application or appeal. These attempts are discussed later.
TA filed an application for miscellaneous matters with the application for leave to appeal or appeal. The miscellaneous matters application sought, among…

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 TA v Chadi

Details

AGLC: TA v Chadi [2021] QCATA 153
Case: [2021] QCATA 153
Decision Date: 30 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of TA v Chadi, the primary issue before the court was the refusal of an application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal or to file an appeal. The case involved a dispute between the parties in Queensland, and the court was required to determine whether it was in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal or the appeal, considering the merits of the case and the potential prejudice to the respondent.

The legal issues considered by the court included the statutory time limits for filing an application for leave to appeal or an appeal, and the discretion available to the court under the relevant legislation to extend such time. The court also had to assess the merits of the applicant’s reasons for not filing the application within the specified 28-day period and whether the granting of an extension of time would be prejudicial to the respondent or against the interests of justice.

The court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient grounds for the extension of time, and the potential prejudice to the respondent outweighed the merits of the appeal. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory time limits and the need for applicants to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension. The court refused the application for an extension of time, and it was also noted that, until further order, the Appeal Tribunal’s reasons for decision could only be published in a de-identified format to protect the privacy of the parties involved.

In summary, the court denied the application for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal or to file an appeal, and it emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory time limits. The court's decision highlights the need for applicants to provide compelling reasons for any delay and to consider the potential prejudice to the opposing party.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal or appeal is refused.

2. Until further order, other than to the parties to the proceeding, the Appeal Tribunal’s reasons for decision may be published in a de-identified format only.

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.

CITATION:	*TA v Chadi* [2021] QCATA 153
PARTIES:	TA
(applicant/appellant)
v
ADAM CHADI
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO:	APL002-21
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO:	ADL059-19
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	30 November 2021
HEARING DATE:	4 August 2021
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Senior Member Howard
ORDERS:	1. The application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal or appeal is refused. 2. Until further order, other than to the parties to the proceeding, the Appeal Tribunal’s reasons for decision may be published in a de-identified format only.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN REFUSED – where an applicant did not file the application for leave to appeal or appeal within 28 days after the day on which the parties were given written reasons for the decision – where an application for extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal or appeal was considered – where the applicant’s reasons for not filing the application for leave to appeal or appeal within 28 days after the relevant day were considered – where the merits of the appeal were considered – whether granting an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal or appeal was prejudicial against the respondent – whether granting an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal or appeal was in the interests of justice – where an application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal or appeal was refused *Acts Interpretation Act* 1954 (Qld), s 38 *Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act* 2009 (Qld), s 142, s 142(1), s 143(3), s 143(4), s 143(5)(c) *Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Regulation* 2019 (Qld), reg 10(4), reg 10(5), reg 10(6)(c) *Aon Risk Services Pty Ltd v Australian National University* (2009) 239 CLR 175 *Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman* [2011] QCAT 229, [9] *Reeve*vHamlyn [2015] QCATA 133, [35], [36]
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented