Inki Group Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council
[2015] QCAT 32
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Inki Group Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council[2015] QCAT 32
- Add to List
Inki Group Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council[2015] QCAT 32
Inki Group Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council[2015] QCAT 32
CITATION: | Inki Group Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2015] QCAT 32 |
PARTIES: | Inki Group Pty Ltd t/as Café Le Petit Paradis (Applicant) |
v | |
Brisbane City Council (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAR359-14 |
PARTIES: | Inki Group Pty Ltd t/as Little Paradise (Applicant) |
v | |
Brisbane City Council (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAR360-14 |
MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Acting Senior Member Howard |
DELIVERED ON: | 3 February 2015 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | STAY APPLICATION – FOOD BUSINESS LICENCE – where show cause notice issued as to why the food business licence should not be cancelled – whether any basis for stay application – whether any decision made which could be stayed Food Act 2006 (Qld) s 240 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’).
REASONS FOR DECISION
- [1]On 17 November 2014, Inki Group Pty Ltd trading as ‘Café Le Petit Paradis’ and Inki Group Pty Ltd trading as ‘Little Paradise’ filed, in respect of each of the them, an application to review a decision and an application to stay a decision.
- [2]The attached ‘decision’ in each case is a show cause notice under the Food Act 2006 (Qld) (‘Food Act’) in respect of the food business licence for each of the premises. In each case, there is a notation in the review application to the effect that the decision to close the business is pending.
- [3]The stay application, in each case, seeks a stay of the decision made regarding closure of business.
- [4]There was some unusual and unfortunate delay after the filing of the applications until they were referred to me on 12 January 2015. I then made directions in similar terms in both proceedings to the following effect:
1 (i). Inki Group Pty Ltd must advise the Tribunal in writing, and provide a copy of its written advice to the Brisbane City Council, whether it intends to proceed with the applications for a stay and review of a decision on GAR359-14/GAR360-14 by:
4:00 PM ON 27 JANUARY 2015
1 (ii). If Inki Group Pty Ltd intends to proceed it must further provide a copy of the decision of the Brisbane City Council cancelling its food licence and a copy of its application for an internal review by the Brisbane City Council of the decision to cancel the licence.
- In the event that Inki Group Pty Ltd does not comply with direction 1 above, the Tribunal will dismiss the applications.
- [5]Both files were referred back to me today for decisions on the stay applications. No material had been filed by the Inki Group on either file. However, during the day today the Tribunal received an email from Inki Group’s lawyers attaching a copy of a decision made by the Brisbane City Council dated today 3February 2015 under the Food Act cancelling the food business licence for the premises trading as Café Le Petit Paradis. The email is also said to attach a stay application but instead attaches a further, and it seems incomplete, application for review. It does not attach a further stay application. The email states as follows:
BCC has closed the business today and we request that the stay application be granted as soon as possible to ensure the business is not affected.
- [6]A person may apply for internal review of an original decision to the Chief Executive under the Food Act.[1] In this case, if there is a reviewable decision, the (first) review would be done internally by another officer of the Brisbane City Council. Application for internal review by the Council must be made within 28 days after an information notice is given for a decision.[2] If an application has been made for review of an original decision, the applicant may immediately apply under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) to QCAT for the stay of the decision.[3]
- [7]QCAT may stay a decision to secure the effectiveness of the review and any later review.[4] If a stay is given, the period of the stay must not extend pass the time when the reviewer makes a review decision about the original decision and any later period QCAT allows for enable a review of the internal review decision.[5] Only after a party has been through the internal (first) review process is it then entitled to seek external (second) review in QCAT.[6]
- [8]The stay applications filed apparently seek stay orders in respect of the show cause notices. These are not decisions in respect of which a stay order may be made. When I made directions in the matter, I had thought that there may have been later notices issued by the Brisbane City Council which were decisions capable of review (and which had not been provided by Inki Group to the Tribunal) for which internal review had been sought by Inki Group. It now seems that is not the case. In respect of the stay applications filed on 17 November 2014, I am not satisfied that there is/are a decision or decisions which could be stayed by QCAT. Those applications for stay are dismissed.
- [9]It also seems that the review applications filed on 17 November 2014 were premature, and that there were no decisions which were reviewable by the Tribunal at that stage. However, I will give the applicants one further opportunity to provide any further documentation which may indicate that there was a reviewable decision on foot in respect of either of the food business licences. I make directions that they do so by 10 February 2015. If there is no documentation forthcoming which confirms that there is in fact any reviewable decision, those applications for review will be dismissed.
- [10]The orders made then are that the stay applications be dismissed and that the Inki Group must file and serve any material and submissions it relies upon to demonstrate that there is a decision reviewable by the Tribunal in respect of the food business licences for the premises Little Paradise and Café Le Petit Paradis by 13 February 2015. If the Inki Group fails to comply, the applications for review will be dismissed.
- [11]I make the observation that it appears that the only decision capable of review is the decision of Brisbane City Council dated 3 February 2015 to cancel the food business licence relating to ‘Café Le Petit Paradis’. It would appear that it is internally reviewable only with the Brisbane City Council at this stage. A stay application may be made in respect of it to QCAT if an internal review has been sought, but there is currently no stay application in respect of it. In any event, it is not apparent that an internal review (with the Brisbane City Council) has been sought in respect of that decision.