Little v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General
[2017] QCAT 358
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
- Little v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2017] QCAT 358
- Add to List
Little v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2017] QCAT 358
Little v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2017] QCAT 358
CITATION: | Little v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2017] QCAT 358 |
PARTIES: | Kraig Little (Applicant) |
v | |
Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General (Respondent) | |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | CML207-17 |
MATTER TYPE: | Childrens matters |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member McLean Williams |
DELIVERED ON: | 18 October 2017 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – Procedure – application to extend time – section 61 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 61 Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2009 (Qld), s 354 Braunberger v Assistant Commissioner Les Hopkins [2014] QCATA 320 Thompson v Body Corporate for Aspect Caloundra CTS 35499 [2013] QCATA 121 |
APPEARANCES: |
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]These reasons for decision relate to an application to extend time pursuant to s 61(1) of the QCAT Act. Section 61(1) of the QCAT Act provides that the Tribunal may, by order:
- extend a time limit fixed for the start of a proceeding by this Act or an enabling Act; or
- extend or shorten a time limit fixed by this Act, an enabling Act or the rules; or
- waive compliance with another procedural requirement under this Act, an enabling Act or the rules.
- [2]On 22 August 2017 the Applicant filed an Application to review a decision seeking review before the Tribunal of a decision made on 2 June 2017 by the Director of the Screening Services Unit, Blue Card Services within the Department of Justice and Attorney-General cancelling his positive notice and Blue Card and to issue instead a negative notice. On 22 August 2017 the Applicant also applied to the Tribunal applying to extend a time limit, or waive compliance with a procedural requirement in order that his Application for review might be considered by the Tribunal out of time.
- [3]The decision which the Applicant wishes to review was made on 2 June 2017. In the ordinary course an Application to review ought to have been filed before QCAT by no later than 3 July 2017.[1] This Application to review was filed on 22 August 2017, thus making it fifty days out of time.
- [4]In the Application for Review, the Applicant submits that he received the decision in ‘June 2017’. Further, in response to the question ‘State briefly why you think the decision is wrong or not properly made’ the Applicant specified:
Decision was properly made, I was late in returning information they required.
- [5]In response to the Part C on the Application to review a decision, the Applicant stated:
I was working fulltime nightshifts & other family commitments. By the time I realised the date I had to respond it had already passed.
Need to get back into the workforce to support my family. There are job opportunities for me but I am restricted by not having a blue card and positive notice.
- [6]In the Application to extend time, the Applicant stated:
I had a dispute with my daughter taken out of context and police were called. It’s been 22 years since last conviction and I am a well respected member in the community [in] which I worked.
- [7]The Tribunal made directions on 28 August 2017 allowing the Applicant until 11 September 2017 to file further submissions to support his application to extend time. However, no further submissions have been filed.
- [8]The Respondent opposes the application to extend time. In submissions filed on 25 September 2017 the Respondent says that the decision now under review was sent to the Applicant by express post on 2 June 2017, and information was included therein explaining to the Applicant his review rights.
- [9]Relevant considerations in the exercise of the discretion in s.61(1) of the QCAT Act include:
- whether there is a satisfactory explanation to account for the delay;
- the Applicant’s prospects for succeeding on the Application to review;
- prejudice to the parties;
- the length of any delay; and
- In an overall sense, whether it is now in the interests of justice to grant the extension.[2]
- [10]Matters (b), (c) and (d) from the list in paragraph [9] above may be dealt with together. The period of delay is seven weeks and one day, which, in the overall scheme of things is not an excessive delay. There is no evidence of any prejudice to the Respondent, other than the costs that it will incur in responding to the Review Application, should it proceed. I do not attribute much weight to that factor. On the limited material before me it is just not possible to form any view as to the Applicant’s prospects of success on the Application for review, if he were to succeed in this preliminary Application to extend time. However, more tellingly, the Applicant has not bothered to provide any further submissions so as to be ale to better demonstrate his prospects of success on the Application for review, even when afforded that opportunity by the Tribunal, in the directions issued on 28 August 2017.
- [11]In response to matter (a) from the list in paragraph [9] above, the Applicant has not provided any adequate explanation for his delay in commencing the Application to review, other than to say that he was ‘unaware’ of the 28 day time limit until sometime after that time limit had already passed. That explanation is unconvincing. The decision now under review was accompanied by all the necessary information for the Applicant if he were minded to exercise his review rights before the Tribunal.[3] In this regard, the Respondent now submits, and I accept, that the Applicant “has slept on his rights”.[4]
- [12]Section 354 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2009 (Qld) (‘the WWC Act) provides that any application for review is to be filed within 28 days of the date that the Applicant receives the decision. That has not happened. On the basis of the material before me I am not satisfied that it is now in the interests of justice to grant an extension beyond the 28 days ordinarily provided by s 354 of the WWC Act.
- [13]The Application for an extension of time is dismissed.
Footnotes
[1] Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2009 (Qld), s 354, which requires that any application to review be filed within 28 days of the date that the Applicant receives a decision.
[2] Braunberger v Assistant Commissioner Les Hopkins [2014] QCATA 320, [9] per Judicial Member Thomas.
[3] Respondent’s submissions, paragraphs 4 & 16.
[4] Thompson v Body Corporate for Aspect Caloundra CTS 35499 [2013] QCATA 121 at [62] per Judicial Member Thomas and Member Hanly.