Uren v Harcourts Broadbeach Waters

CITATION:

Uren v Harcourts Broadbeach Waters [2018] QCATA 9

PARTIES:

Peter Uren
(Applicant)

v

Harcourts Broadbeach Waters

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL303-17

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Cranwell

DELIVERED ON:

29 January 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.  The application for an extension of time is refused.

2.  The application for leave to appeal or appeal is therefore dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – application to extend time for leave to appeal

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TIME, EXTENSION AND ABRIDGEMENT – where the applicant filed a claim for leave to appeal – where application for leave to appeal was filed out of time – where the applicant filed an application for an extension of time – whether application for an extension of time should be granted

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 3, s 61
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 419, s 420

Coppens v Water Wise Design Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 309
Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor [2001] QCAT 229

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

1. On 4 July 2017, the Tribunal ordered the Residential Tenancies Authority to pay a $2,360 rental bond to the parties as follows:

   a)$678.27 to Mr Uren.

   b)$1,681.73 to Harcourts Broadbeach Waters.

2. On 13 September 2017, over two months later, Mr Uren filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal.  The application was filed out of time, so Mr Uren also filed an application for an extension of time.

3. Section 61 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (the QCAT Act) gives the Tribunal power to extend a time limit fixed for the start of a proceeding. The Tribunal cannot extend time if to do so would cause prejudice or detriment to a party to a proceeding, not able to be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or damages. Harcourt Broadbeach Waters has not asserted that it will suffer any prejudice through an extension that cannot be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or damages.

4. The relevant factors to be considered by the Tribunal in determining whether an extension of time should be granted were summarised in Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor:[1]

   a)Whether a satisfactory explanation (or “good reason”) is shown to account for the delay.

   b)The strength of the case the applicant wishes to bring (assuming it is possible for some view on this to be formed on the preliminary material).

   c)The length of the delay.

   d)Overall, whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension. This usually calls for some analysis of the above factors considered in combination.

   [1][2011] QCAT 229, 3 [9].

5. In Coppens v Water Wise Design Pty Ltd (Coppens),[2] Thomas…