Tilecorp Pty Ltd v Pinnacle Seal Pty Ltd

[2011] QCAT 52

CITATION:		Tilecorp Pty Ltd v Pinnacle Seal Pty Ltd [2011] QCAT 52
PARTIES:	Tilecorp Pty Ltd
v
Pinnacle Seal Pty Ltd

APPLICATION NUMBER: REO023-10

MATTER TYPE: Other civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:     19 January 2011

HEARD AT:  Brisbane

DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe, Member

DELIVERED ON: 11 February 2011

DELIVERED AT:      Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: The application to reopen is refused.

CATCHWORDS : 

REOPEN PROCEEDINGS – where applicant failed to attend compulsory conference – where order made in his absence – where applicant noted date for conference incorrectly – whether a reasonable excuse

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 ss 72, 137

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr Mullan, the owner of Tilecorp Pty Ltd did not attend a compulsory conference set down for 22 October 2010 because he wrongly entered the date for hearing in his calendar.

2. At the compulsory conference, pursuant to s 72(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) Professor Ashman ordered:

a)That Tilecorp pay Pinnacle Seal $10,912.00 including GST within 14 days;

b)That Pinnacle be relieved from any liability for Tilecorp’s claim of $12,240.00 plus GST.

1. Tilecorp has applied to reopen the order.

2. Section 72(3) provides that the Act applies to Professor Ashman’s decision as if it was a decision made by the tribunal constituted for the hearing. An order can be reopened if a party did not appear at the hearing of a proceeding and had a reasonable excuse for not attending: s 137 QCAT Act.

3. The question is whether Tilecorp had a reasonable excuse for its non-attendance.  This tribunal has already determined that missing a date through inadvertence is not a reasonable excuse.[1]  The President articulated the rationale for a seemingly harsh decision[2]:

“In the context of the legislation and the demands upon public resources like those which fund QCAT it is not unreasonable to impose, upon a party, an expectation and an obligation that it will ensure it acts in its own best interests, or accept the consequences; and that mistakes like those made here, while attracting sympathy, can no longer prevail over statutory and practical constraints on available resources for dispute resolution.

When these matters are appreciated, it will be seen that a party’s own fundamental error in misreading a document cannot be categorised as a ‘reasonable excuse’ for the purpose of revisiting proceedings which were otherwise correctly and legitimately brought to an end.”

[1] Breezeway Developments Pty Ltd v ADG Hydraulics Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 069

[2] Supra at [12] – [13]

1. In the absence of any other reason for Mr Mullan’s failure to attend the compulsory conference, the application to reopen must fail.