Woolley v Grace Worldwide (Australia) Pty Ltd
[2015] QCAT 461
•1 September 2015
| 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 details about Mrs Woolley’s health I consider it inappropriate to restate it verbatim here, suffice to say that the two handwritten ‘emails’ state that she’d attended a doctor “Friday last” (presumably Friday 5 June), is unable to attend the hearing “because of illness”, and she would like to have the hearing “postponed”.
On 31 August 2015 Mrs Woolley further submitted:
a) A handwritten note dated 26 August that appears to be written by Mrs Woolley and reads:
“I attended Mrs Dorothy Woolley on FRIDAY 5th June 2015 She had a severe case of …………. and would have been unable to attend Court on 10th June 2015
Yours” ;
b) Photographs (and photocopies of same), apparently of a computer screen showing what appears to be an email addressed to ‘[email protected]’ on 8 June 2015, but with no proof that it was sent; and
c) A medical certificate from Dr Michael Choy at Mermaid Junction Medical Centre dated 26 August 2015, certifying that:
“I have today seen Mrs Dorothy Woolley
Mrs Dorothy Woolley will be unfit to attend court due to [removed by QCAT for privacy] from 5/06/2015 to 8/06/2015.”
File notes written by Southport Registry staff show that on 28 July and 19 August much assistance was given to help Mrs Woolley fulfil the requirement to provide the emails she claimed had been sent, but Mrs Woolley could not or did not provide the requisite proof.
In his response to Mrs Woolley’s reopening application, Mr Colin Natanielu, Senior Claims Consultant for the Respondent, said that the application should be refused because (among other things) Mrs Woolley had not submitted any affidavit or doctor’s certificate attesting to her ill health on the hearing date.
In all proceedings, QCAT must act fairly and according to the substantial merits of the case.[4] In conducting a proceeding, the Tribunal may inform itself in any way it considers appropriate,[5] but must ensure, so far as is practicable, that all relevant material is disclosed to the Tribunal to enable it to decide the proceeding with all the relevant facts.[6]
[4]Section 28(2) QCAT Act.
[5]Section 28(3)(c) QCAT Act.
[6]Section 28(3)(e) QCAT Act.
In other words, QCAT has an obligation to act fairly, but that must be balanced with a party’s onus to prosecute its own case. The obligation on the Tribunal to ensure disclosure of all relevant material includes such things as giving proper directions and the Registry providing assistance with certain administrative matters where such assistance is required—all of which was provided to Mrs Woolley in connection with her reopening application.
In making her reopening application Mrs Woolley had to prove that a reopening ground existed. That ground, she says, was non-appearance due to illness. The evidence she provided did not prove that she was ill and therefore unable to attend the hearing on 10 June. The medical certificate from Dr Choy does not substantiate her claim that she was examined or seen by him on 5 June as she claimed, nor that she was unfit to attend on 10 June. Despite her assurances, she was unable to provide proof that she had contacted the Registry on 8 June to seek an adjournment.
It is for these reasons that the application of 9 July was refused.
2
0
0