Valuers Registration Board v Murphy - [2019] QCAT 41

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Valuers Registration Board v Murphy [2019] QCAT 41

PARTIES:

VALUERS REGISTRATION BOARD
(applicant)

v

NEIL PATRICK MURPHY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR252-18

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

25 February 2019

HEARING DATE:

5 February 2019

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Kanowski

ORDERS:

1.   The application by the Valuers Registration Board for an extension of time to make the disciplinary referral is refused.

2.   The disciplinary referral is dismissed.

3.   By 4:00pm on 6 March 2019, Neil Patrick Murphy must advise the Tribunal and the Valuers Registration Board whether he intends to pursue his application for costs.

4.   The following directions apply only if Neil Patrick Murphy intends to pursue his application for costs.

5.   Neil Patrick Murphy must file evidence and submissions in support of the application for costs, and give a copy to the Valuers Registration Board, by 4:00pm on 6 March 2019.

6.   The Valuers Registration Board must file submissions in response, and give a copy to Neil Patrick Murphy, by 4:00pm on 13 March 2019.

7.   The application for costs will be decided by the Tribunal on the papers, not before 4:00pm on 13 March 2019.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – VALUERS – MISCONDUCT – where disciplinary referral to Tribunal delayed – whether referral valid – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction – whether extension of time should be granted

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 47, s 61(1)(a)
Valuers Registration Act 1992 (Qld), s 52

Anderson-Barr v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCAT 438
Crowley v McKay [1999] QDC 281
Irwin v Commissioner of State Revenue [2012] QCAT 477
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
Registrar of Motor Vehicles v Vu and Anor [2013] SASCFC 10

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

C Templeton, instructed by RBG Lawyers

Respondent:

K Riedel, instructed by Colin Biggers & Paisley Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

The Valuers Registration Board has made a disciplinary referral to the Tribunal, in respect of Mr Murphy, who is a registered valuer. In the substantive proceeding, the Board is seeking a reprimand of Mr Murphy, and certain other orders.
Mr Murphy’s lawyers have applied to the Tribunal for the disciplinary proceeding to be struck out for lack of jurisdiction in the Tribunal. Mr Murphy’s lawyers argue that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because of a delay by the Board in referring the matter to the Tribunal. I am required to decide the strike-out application as a preliminary question.
History of the matter
The following history is undisputed. In April 2017, the Board received a complaint about an aspect of Mr Murphy’s professional conduct, though it had earlier received notification of the matter in December 2016. The Board appointed a Queen’s Counsel as investigator. The investigator’s final report to the Board was dated 23 February 2018.
On 20 March 2018 the Secretary to the Board wrote to Mr Murphy’s lawyers, giving notice that it proposed to take certain disciplinary action against Mr Murphy.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Valuers Registration Board v Murphy

Details

AGLC: Valuers Registration Board v Murphy [2019] QCAT 41
Case: [2019] QCAT 41
Decision Date: 25 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Valuers Registration Board v Murphy involved a disciplinary referral against a registered valuer, Neil Patrick Murphy. The Valuers Registration Board sought an extension of time to make a disciplinary referral to the Tribunal, which had been delayed. The legal issues before the court were whether the referral was valid, whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the matter, and whether an extension of time should be granted. The court had to consider the interests of justice in determining whether an extension of time was appropriate.

The court found that the delay in making the referral did not deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction. However, the court considered whether an extension of time should be granted to make the referral. The court weighed up all the factors and concluded that on balance, the interests of justice did not favour an extension of time. Therefore, the Board's application for an extension of time was refused, and the referral was dismissed. The court also made procedural directions for the resolution of the question of costs, which was part of the application filed by Mr Murphy.

In summary, the court found that the delay in making the referral did not deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction, but it was not appropriate to grant an extension of time. Therefore, the disciplinary referral was dismissed. The court also made directions for the resolution of the question of costs. The final orders were that the application for an extension of time was refused, the disciplinary referral was dismissed, and procedural directions were made for the resolution of the question of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application by the Valuers Registration Board for an extension of time to make the disciplinary referral is refused.

2. The disciplinary referral is dismissed.

3. By 4:00pm on 6 March 2019, Neil Patrick Murphy must advise the Tribunal and the Valuers Registration Board whether he intends to pursue his application for costs.

4. The following directions apply only if Neil Patrick Murphy intends to pursue his application for costs.

5. Neil Patrick Murphy must file evidence and submissions in support of the application for costs, and give a copy to the Valuers Registration Board, by 4:00pm on 6 March 2019.

6. The Valuers Registration Board must file submissions in response, and give a copy to Neil Patrick Murphy, by 4:00pm on 13 March 2019.

7. The application for costs will be decided by the Tribunal on the papers, not before 4:00pm on 13 March 2019.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Weighing up all of the factors, I consider on balance that the interests of justice do not favour an extension of time. I therefore refuse the Board’s application for an extension of time. It follows that the referral must be dismissed.Conclusion I have decided that the Board’s delay in referring the matter does not deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction, provided that an extension of time is granted. I have decided that an extension of time is not appropriate. Accordingly, I will dismiss the referral. The application for miscellaneous matters filed by Mr Murphy on 12 October 2018 included an application for costs. It is appropriate to make some procedural directions to enable the question of costs to be resolved.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Valuers Registration Board v Murphy [2019] QCAT 41
PARTIES:	VALUERS REGISTRATION BOARD (applicant)
v
NEIL PATRICK MURPHY (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR252-18
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:	25 February 2019
HEARING DATE:	5 February 2019
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Kanowski
ORDERS:	1. The application by the Valuers Registration Board for an extension of time to make the disciplinary referral is refused. 2. The disciplinary referral is dismissed. 3. By 4:00pm on 6 March 2019, Neil Patrick Murphy must advise the Tribunal and the Valuers Registration Board whether he intends to pursue his application for costs. 4. The following directions apply only if Neil Patrick Murphy intends to pursue his application for costs. 5. Neil Patrick Murphy must file evidence and submissions in support of the application for costs, and give a copy to the Valuers Registration Board, by 4:00pm on 6 March 2019. 6. The Valuers Registration Board must file submissions in response, and give a copy to Neil Patrick Murphy, by 4:00pm on 13 March 2019. 7. The application for costs will be decided by the Tribunal on the papers, not before 4:00pm on 13 March 2019.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – VALUERS – MISCONDUCT – where disciplinary referral to Tribunal delayed – whether referral valid – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction – whether extension of time should be granted Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 47, s 61(1)(a) Valuers Registration Act 1992 (Qld), s 52 Anderson-Barr v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCAT 438 Crowley v McKay [1999] QDC 281 Irwin v Commissioner of State Revenue [2012] QCAT 477 Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Registrar of Motor Vehicles v Vu and Anor [2013] SASCFC 10
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	C Templeton, instructed by RBG Lawyers
Respondent:	K Riedel, instructed by Colin Biggers & Paisley Lawyers