Turnbull Hotels Pty Ltd v Department of Community Safety t/as Queensland Fire and Rescue Service
[2014] QCATA 173
•10 July 2014
| CITATION: | Turnbull Hotels Pty Ltd v Department of Community Safety t/as Queensland Fire and Rescue Service [2014] QCATA 173 |
| PARTIES: | Turnbull Hotels Pty Ltd (Applicant/Appellant) |
| V | |
| Department of Community Safety t/as Queensland Fire and Rescue Service (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL214-14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member Stilgoe, OAM |
| DELIVERED ON: | 10 July 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application to extend or shorten a time limit or for waiver of compliance with a procedural requirement filed on 8 May 2014 is refused. 2. The application for leave to appeal or appeal is therefore dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – whether grounds for leave to appeal Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 3(b), 61, 143(3) Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
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
On 21 May 2013, the tribunal ordered Turnbull Hotels Pty Ltd pay the Department of Community Safety t/as Queensland Fire and Rescue Service (“QFRS”) $24,780.30. The order related to unpaid false alarm charges for the Criterion Hotel in Rockhampton.
On 8 May 2014, almost twelve months later, Turnbull filed an application for leave to appeal. The application was filed out of time, so Turnbull also filed an application for an extension of time.
Mr Turnbull submitted the following grounds in support of his application for an extension of time. He says that Turnbull has been in dispute with QFRS since 2004. He says Turnbull has paid the fines that he believes is the company’s responsibility. He has had a long history of communicating with QFRS about false fire alarms. He was not aware of the tribunal hearing. His application for a reopening was unsuccessful.
Mr Turnbull also says that, since the tribunal’s decision, he has been heavily involved with QFRS to make structural changes to the hotel so that it will be safer and comply with QFRS requirements. He says that this consumed much of his time and the issue of the fines became secondary.
Section 61 of the QCAT Act gives the tribunal power to extend a time limit fixed for the start of a proceeding. The factors that the tribunal considers when exercising this discretion are summarised in Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor[1]. What is the length of the delay? Is there a satisfactory explanation of the delay? What are the merits of the case the applicant wants to put before the tribunal? Will there be prejudice to the other parties to the application? Is it in the interests of justice to grant the application?
[1][2011] QCAT 229 at [9].
A party must file an application for leave to appeal within 28 days of receipt of the decision[2]. Turnbull’s delay of almost a year is, therefore, considerable.
[2]QCAT Act s 143(3).
Mr Turnbull’s explanation for the delay is unconvincing. He says that Turnbull started to pay off the amount of the order while still disputing the debt. And yet, Turnbull took no formal action to dispute the tribunal’s decision. He was engaged with the QFRS but he did not think it important to appeal a decision with which he disagreed.
I am not persuaded that Turnbull’s application for leave to appeal has any merit. Mr Turnbull has not pointed to any error by the learned Adjudicator. He repeats matters that were considered by the learned Adjudicator. He refers to events that have occurred since the decision, which could not have formed part of the learned Adjudicator’s deliberations.
While it will not suffer significant prejudice by Turnbull’s delay, QFRS is entitled to the benefit of the tribunal’s decision.
The interests of justice do not favour an extension. Finality in litigation is highly desirable.[3] The tribunal’s obligation to deal with matters fairly, economically and quickly[4] are not achieved by allowing Turnbull to file this application after such a lengthy delay. The application to extend or shorten a time limit or for waiver of compliance with a procedural requirement filed on 8 May 2014 is refused. The application for leave to appeal or appeal is therefore dismissed.
[3]See Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 128 per Gleeson CJ, Kirby and Gummow JJ.
[4]QCAT Act s 3(b).
0
3
0