Watkins v Goswami - [2019] QCAT 194

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Watkins v Goswami & Anor [2019] QCAT 194

PARTIES: DEBBIE WATKINS

(applicant)

v

GEMMA GOSWAMI
and
ANOOP GOSWAMI

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO/S:

REO010-18

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

23 July 2019

HEARING DATE:

21 June 2019

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Kanowski

ORDER & DIRECTIONS:
Order

Procedural requirements are waived for Debbie Watkins to seek leave under section 49 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) to start a new appeal proceeding against the orders of the Tribunal made on 14 March 2018 in minor civil dispute proceeding Richlands T19/18 and T20/18.

Directions

1. The reopening application filed by Debbie Watkins on 18 July 2018 in REO010-18 is to be treated as a request for leave under section 49 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) to start a new appeal proceeding against the orders of the Tribunal made on 14 March 2018 in minor civil dispute proceeding Richlands T19/18 and T20/18.

2. The reopening application, along with the material filed by both parties in proceeding REO010/18, are to be referred by the Tribunal’s registry to the President or Deputy President of the Tribunal to consider whether such leave should be granted.

CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – where appeal proceeding dismissed and reopening sought – whether reopening available

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 49, s 136

Darragh v Davis [2017] QCAT 181

Lindgren v Aaron Trigg Painting [2011] QCATA 267

Thomas v Hahnon [2018] QCATA 6

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented, by phone

Respondent:

First respondent appeared for both respondents, by phone

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

In this proceeding, Mrs Watkins seeks to reopen an appeal proceeding, APL064-18.
The background is as follows. Mrs Watkins owns a rental property. She let it to Mr and Mrs Goswami. Mr and Mrs Goswami brought a tenancy proceeding – classified as a ‘minor civil dispute’ and given the case numbers Richlands T19/18 and T20/18 – in the Tribunal against Mrs Watkins. On 14 March 2018 the Tribunal decided the matter substantially in the favour of Mr and Mrs Goswami.
On 16 March 2018, Mrs Watkins filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal form in the Tribunal in respect of the 14 March 2018 decision. On its face, it was an appeal without an application for leave to appeal. However, had it proceeded to hearing, it is likely that it would have been treated as including an application for leave to appeal. This is because such leave is required before an appeal can proceed in respect of a minor civil dispute.[1]
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), s 142(3)(a)(i).
The appeal proceeding did not reach a hearing, though, because it was dismissed by the Appeals Tribunal on 18 June 2018. The order dismissing the appeal proceeding indicated that the dismissal was because of non-compliance with directions. An examination of the earlier directions…

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 Watkins v Goswami

Details

AGLC: Watkins v Goswami [2019] QCAT 194
Case: [2019] QCAT 194
Decision Date: 23 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Watkins v Goswami involved a dispute concerning the availability of reopening an appeal proceeding that had previously been dismissed. The matter was heard before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The appellant, Watkins, sought to reopen the dismissed appeal on the basis that there were significant procedural errors that had occurred during the original proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant was entitled to seek reopening of the dismissed appeal proceeding. This required an interpretation of the provisions of the QCAT Act, particularly sections 49 and 62, which pertain to the granting of leave to appeal and the referral of matters to the President or Deputy President, respectively. The court had to consider whether the circumstances justified the reopening of the proceedings and if the Tribunal’s registry had the authority to suggest such a course of action.

In delivering the decision, the court found that the reopening application was fundamentally misconceived, as the appellant did not have a legal basis to seek such relief. However, the court acknowledged that the suggestion to pursue reopening originated from the Tribunal’s registry. Consequently, the court determined that the appropriate action was to realign the matter with the proper procedural channels, directing the Tribunal’s registry to refer the matter to the President or Deputy President for a decision on whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 49 of the QCAT Act. This decision ensured that any procedural missteps were addressed through the correct legal process.

Orders

Orders of the court

CATCHWORDS:

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

It is also appropriate to make directions under section 62 of the QCAT Act for the Tribunal’s registry to refer the matter to the President or Deputy President for a decision on whether to grant leave under section 49 of the QCAT Act.Conclusion As the reopening application was misconceived, but the misconceived application was suggested by the Tribunal’s registry, the appropriate course is to reorient the matter down the appropriate channel.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.