Radovic v Treasury Casino Brisbane
[2018] QCAT 41
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
- Radovic v Treasury Casino Brisbane[2018] QCAT 41
- Add to List
Radovic v Treasury Casino Brisbane[2018] QCAT 41
Radovic v Treasury Casino Brisbane[2018] QCAT 41
CITATION: | Radovic v Treasury Casino Brisbane [2018] QCAT 41 |
PARTIES: | June Radovic (Applicant) v Treasury Casino Brisbane (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAR305-17 |
MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Cranwell |
DELIVERED ON: | 15 February 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 Casino Control Act 1982 (Qld), s 91A, s 92 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, 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 7 April 2016, the Treasury Casino Brisbane issued Ms Radovic with a written notice that she was excluded from the Treasury Brisbane and Jupiters Gold Coast (now known as the Star Gold Coast) casinos. The exclusion was made under s 92 of the Casino Control Act 1982 (Qld) (‘the Casino Control Act’).
- [2]Section 91A(3) of the Casino Control Act provides:
Also, a person receiving a direction in writing pursuant to section 92 prohibiting the person from entering or remaining in a casino may apply, within 3 months after the day the person receives the direction and as otherwise provided under the QCAT Act, to the tribunal for a review of the direction.
- [3]On 19 October 2017, Ms Radovic filed an application to review the decision with the Tribunal. The application was filed out of time, so Ms Radovic also filed an application for an extension of time.
- [4]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.
- [5]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.
- [6]
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
- [7]In her application for an extension of time, Ms Radovic stated:
I am seeking the extension due to the inability to proceed with the application based on depression and anxiety suffered. There was no reason given at the time as to why I was excluded and only later was I informed that this was subject to section 92 of the Casino Control Act of 1992.
I made numerous attempts to request further information regarding how the decision to exclude me was made and was unable to obtain any specifics about the discussion that allegedly took place. I also called Mrs Jenny Ooi (Liaison Officer) who could not offer any information at the time.
- [8]Ms Radovic provided no medical evidence in support of her application.
- [9]The Notification of Exclusion dated 7 April 2016 provided to Ms Radovic stated that it was made under s 92 of the Casino Control Act. However, it provided no information as to Ms Radovic’s review rights.
- [10]Treasury Casino Brisbane provided a number of file notes of conversations between its staff and Ms Radovic. Relevantly, these record:
- On 24 November 2016, Ms Radovic advised that “she will be going to the tribunal regarding her exclusion”.
- On 9 March 2017, Ms Radovic advised that “she has been depressed, has put on 15 kilos and has been sick since being issued with the exclusion. She went on to tell me that she did not lodge a complaint with the tribunal because she could not be bothered.”
- [11]In fairness to Ms Radovic, I note that she did take some action to challenge the exclusion short of seeking review with the Tribunal. In particular, Ms Radovic sought a revocation of the exclusion decision on 24 April 2017, which was refused by Treasury Casino Brisbane on 19 May 2017. She then requested release of personal information on 30 June 2017, with the information being released on 18 September 2017.
- [12]Ordinarily, a failure by a decision-maker to advise the subject of the decision of their review rights would amount to a satisfactory explanation for a delay in seeking review. However, this is not a case where Ms Radovic was ignorant of her review rights. It is apparent that from at least 24 November 2016 she was aware that she could seek review with the Tribunal, but delayed doing this until 19 October 2017. While Ms Radovic did take other steps to ventilate her disagreement with the exclusion, these steps fell short of seeking review with the Tribunal.
- [13]Ms Radovic has provided two explanations for her delay. Firstly, she has said (variously) that she was depressed, anxious, sick and had put on weight. Ms Radovic has provided no medical evidence relating to these conditions, and I do not accept that she suffered from a medical condition such that she was unable to lodge an application for review. Indeed, as noted above, she was able to take other steps to ventilate her disagreement with the exclusion during this period.
- [14]Ms Radovic’s second explanation was that she could not be bothered. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that Ms Radovic has provided a satisfactory explanation for her delay.
Length of delay
- [15]As noted above, s 91A(3) of the Casino Control Act requires a person in Ms Radovic’s position to apply for review within 3 months. Even if I give Ms Radovic the benefit of the doubt and assume that she did not become aware of her review rights until 24 November 2016, she then delayed almost 11 months before filing her application with the Tribunal. I consider this delay to be considerable.
The strength of the case
- [16]The exclusion was based on a history of behaviour by Ms Radovic which the Treasury Casino Brisbane considered was inappropriate. Ms Radovic disputes elements of this history, and has put forward a number of grounds as to why her exclusion should be lifted. 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 Radovic every benefit of the doubt, I will assume that Ms Radovic’s case is not without some merit.
Prejudice to adverse parties
- [17]The Treasury Casino Brisbane has submitted that if an extension of time was allowed, it would be prejudiced by being put to the expense of defending the application. However, I note that financial loss is inherently capable of being remedied by an appropriate order for costs or damages.
Interests of justice
- [18]The interests of justice do not favour an extension. As Thomas J noted in Coppens, 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 Mr Radovic to file this application after a considerable delay.
Conclusion
- [19]The absence of prejudice to the Treasury Casino Brisbane that cannot be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or damages, and the possibility of some merit to Ms Radovic’s case, point in favour of extending the time for Ms Radovic to apply for review of the exclusion decision.
- [20]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”.[3] Ms Radovic has not done this.
- [21]The application for an extension of time is refused. The application to review a decision is therefore dismissed.