White v Townsend

Case

[2010] QCATA 112

15 December 2010


CITATION:

White v Townsend [2010] QCATA 112

PARTIES: Colin White
v
Phillip Mark Townsend
APPLICATION NUMBER:   APL144-10
MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:     15 December 2010
HEARD AT:  Brisbane
DECISION OF: Richard Oliver, Senior Member
DELIVERED ON: 15 December 2010
DELIVERED AT:      Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application for leave to appeal and appeal the decision dated 29 June 2010 is refused
CATCHWORDS :  Leave to appeal decision to refuse to reopen a minor civil dispute proceeding; section 139(5) of the QCAT Act considered.

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

Decision on the papers

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. On 22 July 2010 Mr White filed an Application for Leave to Appeal or Appeal in the Tribunal.

  1. In part B of the application, the section titled “details of decision which you are appealing”, he identifies the decision appealed from as that being the one made on 29 June 2010.  In Part D he sets out the orders sought as follows:

“I herein request that the Tribunal hear evidence from myself and the Respondent, give me (sic) opportunity to question the Respondent regarding his behaviour and prove his inappropriate behaviour was that of his own undertaking…….”

  1. The decision made on 29 June 2010 was the decision of the learned adjudicator not to reopen the Tribunal’s decision made on 1 June 2010 which dismissed Mr White’s application for minor civil dispute filed on 22 March 2010.

  1. It is therefore clear having regard to the details set out in the application for leave to appeal that it could only refer to the decision not to reopen as opposed to the decision to dismiss the application filed on 22 March 2010.

  1. The distinction is important because section 139(5) of the QCAT Act prevents appeals from an application to reopen. It is in the following terms:

(5)The tribunal’s decision on the application is final and can not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, set aside, or called in question in another way, under the Judicial Review Act 1991 or otherwise.

  1. Therefore, it must follow that as Mr White’s application for leave to appeal is in respect of the decision to refuse to reopen the minor civil dispute proceeding, leave to appeal must be refused.

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0