Woolley v Grace Worldwide (Australia) Pty Ltd - [2015] QCAT 461

CITATION:

Woolley v Grace Worldwide (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] QCAT 461

PARTIES:	Mrs Dorothy Woolley (Applicant)
v
Grace Worldwide (Australia) Pty Ltd (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDO303/15

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Southport

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Mewing

DELIVERED ON:

1 September 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application for reopening of the matter heard and decided on 10 June 2015 is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

Other minor civil dispute matters

APPEARANCES AND REPRESENTATIVES:

This application was heard on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

These written reasons for the Tribunal’s decision of 1 September 2015 to refuse an application to reopen a matter heard and decided on 10 June 2015 are provided pursuant to a request for reasons by the Applicant.
On 7 May 2015 the Applicant, Mrs Woolley, filed an Application for Minor Civil Dispute at the Southport Registry of QCAT, seeking an Order that the Respondent pay $25,000.00 to her as compensation for goods damaged.
On 10 June 2015 the matter was heard by the Tribunal on the evidence before it and the claim was dismissed. Mrs Woolley did not attend on the day of the hearing.
By Application for Reopening filed on 9 July 2015, Mrs Woolley submits that she was unable to attend the hearing due to illness. She said she had notified the Tribunal Registry on 8 June of her illness and inability to attend. Accordingly, she believes that it was unjust for the matter to be heard in her absence.
Section 138 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act allows a party to a proceeding to apply to the tribunal for the proceeding to be reopened if the party considers a reopening ground exists. A ‘reopening ground’ includes a situation where a party did not appear at the hearing and had a reasonable excuse for not attending.[1]
[1]Section 137(a) QCAT Act.
Both the Applicant and Respondent were allowed an opportunity to make written submissions about the reopening application,[2] and these are the basis on which this application to reopen will be considered.
[2]In accordance with Rule 93(2) of the QCAT Rules.
Mrs Woolley’s reopening application first came before Adjudicator Howe on 9 July. He directed that Mrs Woolley provide copies of the emails she claimed she’d sent to the Registry notifying of her inability to attend on 10 June. This was followed by phone calls between the Registry and Mrs Woolley on 28 July, 4 August and 19 August, during which Registry staff reiterated the Adjudicator’s directions and attempted to assist Mrs Woolley to submit the emails.[3]
[3]Administrative Notes dated 31/07/2015 and 21/08/2015 on file Q303/15.
On 31 July 2015 Mrs Woolley filed a page containing handwriting purporting to be transcriptions of two emails she says she sent to the Southport Registry on 8 June 2015 after speaking with a Registry staff member over the phone. As it contains personal…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Woolley v Grace Worldwide (Australia) Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] QCAT 461
Decision Date: 1 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the plaintiff, Mr. Woolley, sought a reopening of a previous decision made on 10 June 2015. The defendant, Grace Worldwide (Australia) Pty Ltd, opposed the reopening of the matter. The court had to decide whether there were sufficient grounds to warrant the reopening of the case, which was originally decided in the County Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue was whether there were exceptional circumstances that justified the reopening of a matter that had already been finally decided.

The court examined the grounds provided by the plaintiff for the reopening of the matter and assessed whether these grounds met the threshold for exceptional circumstances. The court considered whether the new evidence or arguments presented by the plaintiff were significant enough to warrant a reconsideration of the previous decision. The court applied the relevant legal principles concerning the reopening of matters and the criteria for exceptional circumstances, which include whether the new evidence could not have been reasonably discovered earlier and whether the new evidence is likely to lead to a different outcome.

Upon reviewing the evidence and arguments, the court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient exceptional circumstances to warrant the reopening of the matter. The court held that the new evidence and arguments presented by the plaintiff were not significant enough to justify a reconsideration of the previous decision. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not met the required threshold for exceptional circumstances, and therefore, the application for reopening was refused. The court dismissed the application and upheld the decision made on 10 June 2015.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for reopening of the matter heard and decided on 10 June 2015 is refused.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.