Watson v DMCH Group Pty Ltd
[2014] QCAT 446
•5 August 2014
| CITATION: | Watson v DMCH Group Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QCAT 446 |
| PARTIES: | Robbins Watson (Applicant) |
| v | |
| DMCH Group Pty Ltd Henri Vinaccia Christine Vinaccia (Respondents) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDO964/13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Other minor civil dispute matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Southport |
| DECISION OF: | Adjudicator Trueman |
| DELIVERED ON: | 5 August 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Southport |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. That the Application for Consent Orders is refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Minor Civil Dispute – minor debt – application for legal fees due and owing by respondents –application for Consent Order |
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
The parties filed an application for an order by consent on 31 July 2014.
The matter was listed for hearing on 14 July 2014 at Southport before an Adjudicator. The parties filed a request for Consent order on 14 July 2014 seeking an order by consent. An Adjudicator made a consent order on 14 July 2014 that ordered: ‘the application is adjourned, to be relisted for hearing upon the written request of the Applicant. If no further written request is received by 1 September 2014, then the Application is to be dismissed’.
The application for consent order now seeks orders to amend the previous consent order. The application for a consent order, signed by the parties solicitors seeks orders that the order made on 14 July 2014 be amended to read:
The application is adjourned, to be relisted for hearing upon the written request of the Applicant. If no written request is received by 14 July 2015 then the application is to be dismissed.
The only real substantive change to the consent order made on 14 July 2014 to this further request for a new consent order is to amend the date to allow the matter to be relisted. The application contemplates the substantive application wallowing in the registry for many months waiting either for a party to relist the matter or for it to be dismissed.
A tribunal can make an order by consent if requested, due to a settlement reached by the parties to a proceeding other than in a compulsory conference or at mediation.[1]
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 86(1).
In this case, the parties have recorded the terms of the settlement in writing and signed those written terms[2] and file the signed written terms in the registry.[3]
[2]Ibid s 86(2)(a).
[3]Ibid s 86(2)(b).
The tribunal has an obligation to deal with matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick.[4]
[4]Ibid s 3.
The parties’ application for an amendment to the current consent order to adjourn the application to June 2015 does not comply with the obligations of the QCAT Act to have matters dealt with quickly.
It is an unreasonable request to adjourn a matter for a period of nearly twelve months. If the parties have reached agreement then the applicant should request orders be made to give effect to the agreed settlement. If the parties have resolved their matter and the application is no longer required, the claim should be dismissed.
The Tribunal must achieve the objects of the legislation and the Tribunal must ensure proceedings are conducted in an informal way that minimises cost to parties and is as quick as consistent with achieving justice. [5]
[5]Ibid s 4(c).
The tribunal must also encourage the early and economical resolution of disputes before the tribunal.[6]
[6]Ibid s 4(b).
It is an unreasonable request to adjourn an application in this tribunal for a period of near twelve months and to have the application wallowing in the registry waiting for further action. To grant such a long adjournment would be inconsistent with the objects of the legislation.
ORDER
1. That the Application for Consent Orders is refused.
0
0
0