Teasdale v Bentley
[2017] QCAT 444
•11 October 2017
CITATION: | Teasdale v Bentley [2017] QCAT 444 |
PARTIES: | Dean Teasdale |
| v | |
| Samantha Bentley (Respondent) | |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDO1644-17 |
MATTER TYPE: | Other minor civil dispute matters |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Senior Member Howard |
DELIVERED ON: | 11 October 2017 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. (i) The correspondence of the President of the Queensland Civil Administrative Tribunal to Dean Teasdale dated 2 September 2016 and all references to it in Samantha Bentley’s submissions in support of her application for miscellaneous matters filed 17 August 2017 are struck from the record. (ii) All copies of the correspondence and Samantha Bentleys submissions referring to it must be removed from the file by the Principal Registrar. 2. Publication of the letter of 2 September 2016, or details of its contents, by Samantha Bentley is prohibited. 3. Samantha Bentley must file and serve an amended copy of her written submissions in support of her miscellaneous application filed 17 August 2017 without reference to the correspondence referred to in direction 1(i) by 4pm on 19 October 2017. 4. (i) Direction 5 of 15 September 2017 is vacated. (ii) Dean Teasdale must file and serve his submissions in response to the application of Samantha Bentley for miscellaneous matters to dismiss his application for Minor Civil Dispute filed 9 June 2017 by 4pm on 2 November 2017. 5. The Application for miscellaneous matters for dismissal is listed for oral hearing on 9 November 2017 at 2pm. |
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – application for miscellaneous matters to strike material from record – whether material relevant to the substantive application – whether publication of the information would be contrary to the public interest Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66 |
APPEARANCES: |
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Dean Teasdale filed an application for a minor civil dispute (‘MCD’) on 9 June 2017 (‘the second proceeding’).
Subsequently, the respondent to the application, Ms Samantha Bentley, filed a miscellaneous application seeking orders for the striking out of the second proceeding, essentially on the basis that the issues in the proceeding had been previously decided. The material attached to her application includes her submissions and a copy of correspondence dated 2 September 2016 (‘the complaint response’) from the President of QCAT addressed to Mr Teasdale (in response to a complaint made by Mr Teasdale concerning events which occurred in a prior QCAT proceeding – ‘the first proceeding’ – in which he was a party). Ms Bentley’s submissions also refer to the complaint response.
Mr Teasdale then filed a miscellaneous application, seeking orders to the effect that the references in Ms Bentley’s submissions to the complaint response and the copy of the complaint response be struck from the record.
I considered Mr Teasdale’s application and made orders as follows:
1. (i) The correspondence of the President of the Queensland Civil Administrative Tribunal to Dean Teasdale dated 2 September 2016 and all references to it in Samantha Bentleys submissions in support of her application for miscellaneous matters filed 17 August 2017 are struck from the record.
(ii) All copies of the correspondence and Samantha Bentley’s submissions referring to it must be removed from the file by the Principal Registrar.
2. Publication of the letter of 2 September 2016, or details of its contents, by Samantha Bentley is prohibited.
3. Samantha Bentley must file and serve an amended copy of her written submissions in support of her miscellaneous application filed 17 August 2017 without reference to the correspondence referred to in direction 1(i) by 4pm on 19 October 2017.
4. (i) Direction 5 of 15 September 2017 is vacated.
(ii) Dean Teasdale must file and serve his submissions in response to the application of Samantha Bentley for miscellaneous matters to dismiss his application for Minor Civil Dispute filed 9 June 2017 by 4pm on 2 November 2017.
5. The Application for miscellaneous matters for dismissal is listed for oral hearing on 9 November 2017 at 2pm.
Mr Teasdale requested reasons for my decision.
Is the complaint response relevant in these proceedings?
The complaint response arises out of the first proceeding but it is not a document on the tribunal’s record for the first proceeding. The tribunal record for the first proceeding speaks for itself.
There has been a separate process for dealing with complaints received from parties, which was apart from, and outside of, the appeals[1] process. The appeals process is the process through which a party may seek to have error made in the tribunal’s decision corrected.[2]
[1]See QCAT Act, Chapter 2 Part 8.
[2]There are separate avenues to correct administrative slips in Tribunal orders which are not relevant here: QCAT Act, s 135.
The Tribunal file for the second proceeding does not reveal how a copy of the complaint response ended up in the hands of Ms Bentley. The complaint response is not relevant to the Tribunal’s determination of a strike out application in the second proceeding, based on a previous determination of the Tribunal of the issues sought to be litigated by Mr Teasdale in the second proceeding. As I have said, the record in the first proceeding speaks for itself. As stated earlier, the complaint response does not form any part of the record for the first proceeding.
Accordingly, the complaint response and references to it in Ms Bentley’s submissions in support of her application for striking out of the second proceeding, should be struck from the record in the second proceeding.
I make orders accordingly and direct the Principal Registrar to remove it, and Ms Bentley’s submissions referring to it, from the file. Accordingly, Ms Bentley must have the opportunity to provide amended submissions which do not refer to or attach the complaint response.
Non-publication order
On my own initiative, I also make an order pursuant to s 66 of the QCAT Act prohibiting publication of the complaint response by Ms Bentley.
Here, Mr Teasdale complained. The President responded to his concerns. The complaint and response are outside of the proceedings before QCAT. They do not form part of the tribunal record in the first proceeding. I have concluded that it would be contrary to the public interest for the complaint response, being in the nature of a confidential exchange between Mr Teasdale and the President of QCAT and information whose publication would be contrary to the public interest, addressed to Mr Teasdale personally, to be published in second proceedings.
Accordingly, I make orders pursuant to s 66 of the QCAT Act prohibiting publication of the complaint response by Ms Bentley.
Directions and orders
I make orders and directions accordingly.
Further, the strike out application brought by Ms Bentley is yet to be determined. Mr Teasdale has requested an oral hearing of that application. Accordingly, I make directions for Mr Teasdale to file and serve his submissions in response to the application and for the matters to be listed for an oral hearing on 9 November 2017 at 2:00pm.
0
0
1