The Pot Man Pty Ltd t/as De Pot Man (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Gary Reaoch t/as Cooroibah Park Landscapes (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:
APL300-11
MATTER TYPE:
Appeals
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Justice Alan Wilson, President
DELIVERED ON:
24 November 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:
Leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – REOPEN PROCEEDINGS – Where a Magistrate refused to reopen proceedings – Where Magistrate’s decision is final – Where the applicant seeks leave to appeal – Whether leave should be granted
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, ss 3(b), 13(1), 137(a), 139(5)
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Pot Man Pty Ltd (trading as ‘De Pot Man’) brought proceedings against Mr Reaoch claiming $10,301.75 said to be owed for the sale of goods. Mr Reaoch denied that he had agreed to pay for the goods.
The matter was listed in QCAT’s Minor Civil Disputes jurisdiction before a Magistrate, sitting as a QCAT Member, on 3 June 2011. No one appeared on behalf of The Pot Man and the learned Magistrate struck out the application.
Mr Drew Camm then filed an application for reopening, claiming that he was trading as ‘De Pot Man’. In the application the reason for the non-appearance at the hearing before the Magistrate of any person on behalf of De Pot Man was said to be financial difficulties which had led to De Pot Man laying off two staff members, and Mr Camm’s ill health with the flu at the time of the hearing with the result, as Mr Camm wrote in his application for reopening, that ‘… the case date was forgotten in this turmoil’.
The application for reopening came before another Magistrate on 1 July 2011. The hearing was attended by Mr Maciej Radomyski on behalf of De Pot Man. Mr Reaoch again attended. As the recording of that hearing shows, Mr Radomyski frankly conceded that staff at De Pot Man knew of the earlier hearing on 3 June but he himself was unwell and under some strain, and had staff problems.
Upon questioning from the learned Magistrate he admitted that no one from De Pot Man had contacted the Tribunal advising of these things, or seeking an adjournment. The learned Magistrate concluded that De Pot Man had known of the date of the original hearing and had no reasonable excuse for its failure to attend, and refused to reopen.
The first difficulty confronted by De Pot Man in its application to this Appeal Tribunal is that the Magistrate’s earlier decision on the application for reopening is final and cannot be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, set aside, or called in question in any other way: QCAT Act, s 139(5).
Even if that circumstance did not arise, however, there is no basis upon which leave ought to be granted here. As the QCAT Appeal Tribunal has previously observed[1], a reopening can only be granted if a party has a reasonable excuse for not attending the hearing: QCAT Act, s 137(a). The applicant knew of the hearing date and, although its officers or staff have advanced several explanations for their failure to attend, it is inescapable that they knew of the hearing date and took no appropriate steps in their own interests, including any attempt to seek an adjournment of the hearing.
As observed in Breezeway, QCAT has statutory obligations to deal with matters in ways that are accessible, economical and quick: QCAT Act, s 3(b). The Minor Civil Disputes jurisdiction is, in particular, one in which the Tribunal has a broad jurisdiction to make orders that it considers fair and equitable including, importantly, orders dismissing an application if it considers that course to be appropriate: QCAT Act, s 13(1).
It is common knowledge that the jurisdiction is a busy and demanding one, in which parties are expected to present their own cases, and act in their own interests. QCAT’s resources for the resolution of disputes serve, as the High Court has recently observed, the public as a whole and not merely the parties to proceedings[2]. The QCAT statutory regime itself places obligations upon parties to take care in their dealings with Tribunal matters and to act in their own best interests.
[10] The legislation, and the demands upon public resources which fund QCAT, necessarily impose an expectation and an obligation upon a party that it will ensure that it acts in its own best interests, or accept the consequences. A failure to attend in the circumstances advanced for the applicant here is not, in those contexts, a ‘reasonable excuse’ under QCAT Act, s 137(a).
Details
AGLC
The Pot Man Pty Ltd v Reaoch [2011] QCATA 318
Case
[2011] QCATA 318
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In The Pot Man Pty Ltd v Reaoch, the applicant, The Pot Man Pty Ltd, sought leave to appeal against a decision by a Magistrate in the Local Court of New South Wales. The applicant had previously been involved in proceedings against the respondent, Reaoch, and had unsuccessfully applied to the Magistrate to reopen those proceedings. The basis of the appeal was the applicant’s dissatisfaction with the Magistrate's refusal to reopen the proceedings. The appeal concerned the legal principles governing the reopening of civil proceedings and the circumstances in which leave to appeal may be granted.
The court was required to determine whether the applicant’s appeal was within the scope of the minor civil dispute jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. The court also had to consider whether the decision of the Magistrate was final and conclusive, and whether there were grounds for granting leave to appeal. The central issue was whether the Magistrate's refusal to reopen the proceedings was an appealable decision and if the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant leave to appeal.
The court found that the Magistrate's decision was a final and conclusive one, and thus appealable. However, the court determined that the appeal did not fall within the minor civil dispute jurisdiction. The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated any error of law or any other ground that would warrant the granting of leave to appeal. The court emphasised the importance of the finality of decisions made by Magistrates and the limited circumstances in which leave to appeal would be granted.
Consequently, the court refused the application for leave to appeal. The refusal of leave to appeal meant that the decision of the Magistrate remained final, and the applicant was not permitted to appeal further.