Williams v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General
[2018] QCAT 141
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
- Williams v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2018] QCAT 141
- Add to List
Williams v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2018] QCAT 141
Williams v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2018] QCAT 141
CITATION: | Williams v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2018] QCAT 141 |
PARTIES: | Cephia Williams (Applicant) v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | CML049-18 |
MATTER TYPE: | Children‘s matters |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Cranwell |
DELIVERED ON: | 13 April 2018 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – application to extend time for leave to appeal PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TIME, EXTENSION AND ABRIDGMENT – where the applicant filed an application to review a decision out of time – where the applicant filed an application for an extension of time – whether application for an extension of time should be granted Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 39A Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 33, s 61 Cardillo v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCAT 574 Coppens v Water Wise Design Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 309 Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor [2001] QCAT 229 |
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]On 30 November 2017, the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General (the Respondent) decided to refuse Ms Williams’ application to cancel her negative notice.
- [2]The letter advising Ms Williams of this decision contained the following statement:
You have 28 days after receiving this letter, within which to apply to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to have my decision reviewed. An information sheet outlining how you may apply for the review is enclosed.
- [3]I note that s 33 of the QCAT Act provides that an application for the review of a reviewable decision must be made within 28 days of, relevantly, the day the applicant is notified of the decision.
- [4]The copy of the decision letter before me is stamped ‘Posted 30 November 2017’ and contains a tracking label for express post delivery.
- [5]The effect of s 39A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) is that the decision letter is taken to have been received ‘at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post, unless the contrary is proved’. In the case of an express post delivery, that is the next business day, which in this case was 1 December 2017.
- [6]The application for review was therefore required to be made by 29 December 2017.
- [7]On 15 February 2018, Ms Williams filed an application to review the decision with the Tribunal. The application was filed out of time, so Ms Williams subsequently filed an application for an extension of time on 7 March 2018.
- [8]Section 61 of the QCAT Act gives the Tribunal power to extend a time limit fixed for the start of a proceeding. The Tribunal cannot extend time if to do so would cause prejudice or detriment to a party or potential party to a proceeding, not able to be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or damages.
- [9]The relevant factors to be considered by the Tribunal in exercising its discretion to grant an extension of time were summarised in Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor:[1]
- Whether a satisfactory explanation (or “good reason”) is shown to account for the delay.
- The strength of the case the applicant wishes to bring (assuming it is possible for some view on this to be formed on the preliminary material).
- Prejudice to adverse parties.
- Length of the delay, noting that a short delay is usually easier to excuse than a lengthy one.
- Overall, whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension. This usually calls for some analysis of the above factors considered in combination.
- [10]
Each party is aware of the required time limits and the fair approach is to require that limits be complied with unless there is a compelling reason (such as those listed above) to the contrary. This is fair for all parties. Compliance with time limits also will lead to disposition of matters in the most efficient and quick way. Compliance with time limits is also consistent with the public interest in finality of litigation ...
Reason for the delay
- [11]Ms Williams did not provide an explanation for her delay in support of her application to extend time.
- [12]The Respondent made the following submission:
The Applicant contacted Blue Card Services on 10 January 2018. During the phone call the Applicant was aware of the decision to continue her Negative Notice and sought clarification about why her Application for a Blue Card was rejected. The Applicant was advised that the reasons for the decision were contained in the letter that had been sent to her on 30 November 2017. The Applicant then stated that she did not receive the letter and she was informed that Australia post had confirmed delivery to her on 1 December 2017. The Applicant further advised that she had been away.
The Respondent does not accept that the Applicant had not received the correspondence from Blue Card Services as the Applicant was the only person who had been advised of the decision and the Applicant had only been advised via post. The Applicant was aware of the outcome of her Application when she called Blue Card Services on 10 January 2018 and the only way she would have known that outcome was if she had received the letter sent to her.
- [13]I note in passing that a further copy of the decision was sent to Ms Williams as a courtesy under cover of a letter dated 15 January 2018, following the telephone conversation on 10 January 2018.
- [14]It is impossible to resist the logic of the Respondent’s submissions. Ms Williams could not have been aware of the decision to refuse her application to cancel her negative notice as at 10 January 2018 unless she had received the decision letter. The records of Australia Post and the statutory presumption all point to the decision letter having been delivered on 1 December 2017.
- [15]It is possible that Ms Williams was away as noted in the Respondent’s submissions, but this was not a matter raised by Ms Williams in her application to extend time. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that Ms Williams has provided a satisfactory explanation for her delay.
Length of delay
- [16]Ms Williams delayed approximately 7 weeks, from 29 December 2017 until 15 February 2018, before filing her application with the Tribunal. I consider this delay to be considerable.
The strength of the case
- [17]The decision to refuse Ms Williams’ application to cancel her negative notice is based on her criminal history, as well as an incident in May 2012 involving a child in her care. Ms Williams made brief submissions in relation to that incident, and her conduct since that time, in both the application for review and the application to extend time.
- [18]I am not in a position on this application to make findings on the issues for determination in the substantive review should the extension of time be granted. However, in order to give Ms Williams every benefit of the doubt, I will assume that Ms Williams’ case has some merit.
Prejudice to adverse parties
- [19]The Respondent has not pointed to any prejudice to it in its submissions.
Interests of justice
- [20]The interests of justice do not favour an extension. As Thomas J noted in Coppens,[3] finality in litigation is highly desirable. The Tribunal’s obligation under s 3(b) of the QCAT Act to deal with matters, fairly, economically and quickly would not be achieved by allowing Ms Williams to file this application after a considerable delay.
Conclusion
- [21]The absence of prejudice to the Respondent, and the possibility of some merit to Ms Williams’ case, point in favour of extending the time for Ms Williams to apply for review of the exclusion decision.
- [22]However, I am of the view that these factors are outweighed by the interests of justice and the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay. As Member Howe observed in Cardillo v Queensland Building Services Authority, ‘it has … been said that it is a precondition to the exercise of discretion in the applicant's favour that the applicant for extension show an acceptable explanation of the delay’.[4] Ms Williams has not done this.
- [23]The application for an extension of time is refused. The application to review a decision is therefore dismissed.