Wicks & Anor v The Hurst-Meyers Charity Ltd ABN 69 6111 166 119; the Hurst-Meyers Charity Ltd ABN 69 6111 166 119 v Stevens & Anor (Appeal)

In the case of Wicks & Anor v The Hurst-Meyers Charity Ltd, the Hurst-Meyers Charity Ltd sought leave to appeal out of time against a decision made by the Australian Capital Territory Administrative Appeals Tribunal (ACAT). The appeal was lodged beyond the prescribed time limit, leading to the question of whether the Tribunal had the authority to hear such an appeal and, if so, whether leave should be granted. The matter was heard by the ACAT and the Tribunal ultimately refused the application for leave to appeal out of time.

The primary legal issues before the ACAT were whether the Tribunal had the power to hear an appeal against its own decision to refuse leave to appeal out of time, and if so, whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to grant leave to appeal out of time. These issues turned on the interpretation of relevant sections of the ACAT Act 2008 and the principles guiding the exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion. The Tribunal considered previous decisions such as Walls v Coutts and GP v McKenzie and Ors, which held that the ACAT does not have the power to hear appeals against interlocutory decisions. In this case, the Tribunal had to determine whether section 79(3) of the ACAT Act applied to the situation where a party seeks leave to appeal out of time against a decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that only final decisions of the originating process could be appealed within the tribunal, and that the refusal to grant leave to appeal out of time was not a final decision.

The Tribunal, after reviewing the relevant sections of the ACAT Act and previous case law, found that the Tribunal did have the power to hear the application for leave to appeal out of time. However, the Tribunal exercised its discretion not to grant leave to appeal out of time, considering the principles outlined in previous cases. The Tribunal reasoned that the decision in question did not finally determine the parties' rights in the principal causes of action and, as such, was not a final decision. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Hurst-Meyers Charity Ltd could not appeal the decision internally and would need to seek leave to appeal in the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal’s final order was that leave to appeal out of time against the decision of the Presidential Member Daniel on 21 April 2020 was refused. This outcome followed from the Tribunal’s interpretation of the ACAT Act and its application of the principles governing the exercise of its discretion in such matters.