Webber v Moreton Bay Regional Council (No 2)
[2011] QCAT 475
•15 September 2011
| CITATION: | Webber v Moreton Bay Regional Council (No 2) [2011] QCAT 475 |
| PARTIES: | Michael Jon Webber |
| v | |
| Moreton Bay Regional Council |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAR033-11 |
| MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | C Endicott, Senior Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 15 September 2011 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | The application for review of the decision made on 15 February 2011 is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – dangerous dog declaration – agreement reached to withdraw that declaration – where subsequent declaration of a menacing dog – where review application lacks substance – early end to proceedings Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 47 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
The hearing took place on the papers in the absence of the parties under section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Webber’s Rottweiler dog, Jakey, was declared a dangerous dog by the respondent council under the Animal Management (Cat and Dog) Act 2008. Mr Webber did not agree with the declaration and he sought a review of that decision by QCAT.
An agreement was reached between the parties on 3 August 2011 that, among other matters, the respondent council would register Jakey as a menacing dog and would reduce the registration fee to $120 rather than $200. Mr Webber agreed to comply with the Animal Management (Cat and Dog) Act 2008 in regard to the regulation of Jakey.
Mr Webber subsequently complained to QCAT that he had been misled about the impact of the agreement and he complained of harassment from the respondent council.
In accordance with the agreement, the respondent council notified QCAT that the reviewable decision made on 15 February 2011 had been withdrawn. QCAT was subsequently provided with a letter dated 23 August 2011 in which there was confirmation that the reviewable decision had been withdrawn and that Jakey was to be declared as a menacing dog.
The parties were directed to provide submissions as to why the review application should not be dismissed because the reviewable decision had been withdrawn.
Mr Webber submitted that Jakey was still classified as a dangerous dog, he had been charged the wrong registration fee and he has been directed to repair the fence in his backyard by a council officer.
The respondent council submitted that the dangerous dog declaration had been withdrawn and as such if Mr Webber were to continue with the review application, it would amount to an abuse of process. The respondent council submitted that the review application lacked substance once the decision under review had been withdrawn.
Section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 gives QCAT power to bring a proceeding to an early end if the tribunal considers that an application is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or is lacking in substance or is otherwise an abuse of process.
Section 47 has a valid role to play in ensuring that cases objectively lacking substance do not place a respondent in the position of having to devote time and resources to meeting a case that has little or no chances of succeeding. When bringing an early end to a case, QCAT should be satisfied that the factors in favour of a person having the opportunity to continue to seek review of an administrative decision have been clearly outweighed by factors involving the proper use of QCAT’s resources and factors involving fairness to a respondent.
[10] In this case, I was satisfied that the reviewable decision had been withdrawn. As such, there was no longer a decision that could be the subject of a review by QCAT. Mr Webber has already been successful in negotiating a withdrawal of the decision to which he had objected. Mr Webber now has review rights in relation to the new decision but he must proceed again through the process under the Animal Management (Cat and Dog) Act 2008. He cannot use the current review application as the means of seeking a review of the decision to declare Jakey a menacing dog.
[11] His other complaints of harassment and of being charged the wrong fee fall outside the review process at QCAT.
[12] I am satisfied that the proper course is to dismiss the review application to bring an end to the proceedings under section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. In doing so, the resources of QCAT will not be used in a matter where no better outcome could be delivered to the applicant than that which he had already negotiated i.e. a withdrawal of the decision under review. It cannot be considered fair to require a respondent to continue in a proceeding where the outcome is futile.
2
0
0