Taylor v Cox
[2013] QCATA 243
•25 June 2013
| CITATION: | Taylor v Cox [2013] QCATA 243 |
| PARTIES: | Mathew Taylor (Appellant) |
| v | |
| Susan Cox (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL259 -13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Peta Stilgoe OAM, Senior Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 25 June 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application to stay a decision is refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where application for stay of decision Berry v Green [1999] QCA 213 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
The appeal tribunal heard and determined this matter on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Ms Cox was Mr Taylor’s tenant. This is Ms Cox’s third claim filed in the tribunal arising from that relationship. Mr Taylor filed an application to strike out this application on the grounds that the claim arises from the same facts that as the two earlier claims and that the tribunal had heard and determined the claims. Ms Cox, of course, had a different view. The learned Adjudicator decided that this was an issue that should be argued, and determined, at a full hearing.
Mr Taylor wants to appeal that decision. He says, simply, that the learned Adjudicator was wrong. He also wants a stay of the learned Adjudicator’s decision.
The discretion to grant a stay under s 145 is unfettered. The fundamental principle governing applications for a stay is that the successful party is prima facie entitled to the fruits of its judgment, and the question is whether there is some particular feature of the case which warrants departure from that position[1].
[1] Berry v Green [1999] QCA 213 per de Jersey CJ at [2].
Mr Taylor wants to put his dealings with Ms Cox behind him. He wants finality. The quickest way to achieve was to let the hearing proceed. I was not aware that the dispute was listed for hearing on 20 June 2013. In one sense, Mr Taylor has the remedy he sought because, on 20 June 2013, the learned Adjudicator adjourned the hearing pending the appeal tribunal decision.
In another sense, the resolution of the dispute between Mr Taylor and Ms Cox has been delayed. The appeal tribunal hearing is listed on a date to be advised. Mr Taylor may still be facing the original tribunal much later this year.
0