Myers v Queensland Building and Construction Commission
[2020] QCAT 517
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
- Myers v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2020] QCAT 517
- Add to List
Myers v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2020] QCAT 517
Myers v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2020] QCAT 517
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Myers v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QCAT 517 |
PARTIES: | Geoffrey Myers |
(applicant) | |
v | |
queensland building and construction commission | |
(respondent) | |
APPLICATION NO/S: | GAR161-20 |
MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 15 December 2020 |
HEARING DATE: | On the Papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Kent |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | 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. Key legislation Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor [2011] QCAT 229 Jensen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCAT 232 Reeve v Hamlyn [2015] QCATA 133 Uren v Harcourts Broadbeach Waters [2018] QCATA 9 |
APPEARANCES: | This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
- [1]On 6 May 2020, the applicant applied to the Tribunal to review decisions of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) dated 4 November 2019 and the internal review decision of the first decision dated 18 December 2019. Mr Myers has requested two decisions (4 November 2019 and 18 December 2019) of the QBCC be reviewed by the Tribunal. Section 86E of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (‘QBCC Act’) provides the definition of a reviewable decision. The decision 4 November 2019 is a reviewable decision that was the subject of an internal review therefore due to the operation of law it is not within the definition of a decision that is reviewable by the Tribunal. Therefore, I will not consider the decision of 4 November 2019 as I lack jurisdiction to review it and I find that the decision of 18 December 2019 is the relevant decision.
- [2]Section 87 of the QBCC Act sets out that application may be made to QCAT for a review of that decision, ‘as provided under the QCAT Act’.
- [3]Section 33(3) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) states that the application for review must be filed within 28 days of the ‘relevant day’. For present purposes, the relevant day is the day the applicant was notified of the decision.[1] The applicant states in his application for review that he was notified of the decision “during the week ending 20 December 2019”. Therefore, taking a generous view of the calculation of time and dating his receipt of the decision on 20 December 2019, the applicant was required to file his application for review by no later than 17 January 2020.[2]
- [4]The application to review was filed in the Tribunal on 6 May 2020. This is approximately 110 (or 112 if the date of calculation is taken from 18 December 2019) days outside of the 28-day time limit provided for in section 33(3) of the QCAT Act.
- [5]Section 61(1) of the QCAT Act provides that the Tribunal may extend a time limit. The Tribunal issued directions on 25 June 2020 requiring the applicant to give a copy of the application for an extension of time to the respondent, by 3 July 2020, file in the Tribunal and give to the respondent written submissions in support of that application by 6 May 2020. The QBCC was to file any written submissions in response by 17 July 2020. Direction 4 of the Tribunal directions issued on 25 June 2020 stated that the application to extend a time limit would be determined on the papers and without an oral hearing. My decision and the accompanying reasons are in response to this direction.
- [6]The respondent has made an application for miscellaneous matters. The respondent has applied to the Tribunal to strike out the applicant’s review application pursuant to section 48(1)(b) of the QCAT Act and further or in the alternative to strike out any reference to the Original Decision (4 November 2019) on the applicant’s review application pursuant to section 47(1)(a) of the QCAT Act.
Extension of time considerations
- [7]The principles applicable to an application for an extension of time may be considered to be well settled. They are:
- (a)the extent of the delay and whether there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay;
- (b)the merits of the application and prospects of success;
- (c)the likelihood of prejudice to other parties; and
- (d)whether the extension of time is in the interests of justice.[3]
- (a)
Power to dismiss under s 47 of the QCAT Act
- [8]Section 47 of the QCAT Act confers on the Tribunal the power to dismiss or strike out proceedings and relevantly provides that:
(1) This section applies if the tribunal considers a proceeding or a part of a proceeding is—
- (a)frivolous, vexatious or misconceived; or
- (b)lacking in substance; or
- (c)otherwise an abuse of process.
- (2)The tribunal may—
- (a)if the party who brought the proceeding or part before the tribunal is the applicant for the proceeding, order the proceeding or part be dismissed or struck out; …
- [9]
Pursuant to s 47(2)(a) the tribunal may exercise its discretion to strike out or dismiss a proceeding or part of a proceeding brought by an applicant…
The power should be exercised sparingly so that claims that are groundless or which lack merit are barred. If there is a real question to be tried then dismissal at an interlocutory stage is not appropriate.
- [10]
Section 47(2)(a) empowers the tribunal to strike out or dismiss a proceeding or part of a proceeding brought by an applicant. It requires the exercise of a discretion by the tribunal. In exercising the discretion it is necessary to consider whether it is either necessary or appropriate to do so in the circumstances...[6]
...The exercise of the discretion to strike out requires a consideration of the factors relevant in an application under UCPR r 171: ensuring that relevant documents filed in the Tribunal disclose a reasonable cause of action or defence, do not prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceeding, are not unnecessary or scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process.[7]
- [11]
Section 47 of the QCAT Act is, in effect, a summary judgment power. In an application for summary judgment under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) current QCAT President Daubney J found in Elderslie Property Investments No 2 Pty Ltd v Dunn:
... the court needs to be satisfied not only that the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending all or a part of the claim, but also that ‘there is no need for a trial of the claim or the part of the claim’.
As to the onus of proof in an application for summary judgment, Daubney J held:
As this is the plaintiff's application, the burden of satisfying the court of the matters referred to in UCPR 292(2)(a) and (b) rests on the plaintiff: see Qld Park Pty Ltd v Lott; as his Honour observes there, this approach is consistent with that under the former rules. As under the former rules, where a plaintiff leads evidence to make out a prima facie entitlement to judgment, the evidentiary onus shifts to the defendant: see Qld Park Pty Ltd v Lott.
Summary judgment will be granted in only the clearest of cases. The power conferred by s 47 should only be exercised in those cases where it is clear that a party has no real prospects of success and there is no need for a hearing. For KMR to be successful in the application for summary dismissal, I must be satisfied that has no real prospect of success in the proceeding and that there is no need for a hearing in respect of his claim against KMR. As McMeekin J observed in Reardon v Deputy Commissioner for Taxation:
The test to be applied has been expressed in various ways, but all of the verbal formulae which have been used are intended to describe a high degree of certainty about the ultimate outcome of the proceeding if it were allowed to go to trial in the ordinary way.
Dismissal pursuant to s 48 of the QCAT Act
- [12]Pursuant to s 48 of the QCAT Act if a party acts in a way that unnecessarily causes disadvantage to another party, the Tribunal may strike out the proceeding.
Applicant’s submissions
Extension of Time
- [13]The applicant’s submissions do not fully address the criteria listed above. Mr Myers stated that he was requesting an extension of time to seek a QCAT review. He said that he was progressing his QBCC complaint through the responsible minister, Mr De Brenni. Mr Myers’ application had attached to it a letter dated 9 March 2020, under the hand of Ravi Chandra, Minister De Brenni’s Chief of Staff at that time. Mr Myers stated that this letter confirmed an understanding between himself and the minister’s office that while they were in correspondence the 28-day time frame for applying for a Tribunal review was suspended. (The letter does not in fact state this). The letter says:
I am advised that the QBCC’s internal review notice advised you of your ability to seek a further review of this matter through the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). In this regards I would encourage you to obtain your own legal advice on your options for seeking a satisfactory resolution to this matter.
- [14]Clearly there is no guarantee given by the Minister’s Chief of Staff that such a review is available at QCAT at that time.
- [15]Mr Myers said that since the date of 9 March 2020 he has had trouble finalising his application. The reasons he gave were as follows: due to the COVID-19 virus he needed to leave Queensland to go to Canberra to care for his 86 year old mother; he did not have access to relevant documents while in Canberra; there was a requirement for hard copies for the QCAT review application and he experienced not being able to save and then go back to online drafts of QCAT forms 23 and 42. Also, he said that he had been unable to print the required hard copies because his mother's printer had run out of ink and COVID-19 had resulted in ink shortages. No proof was offered to support some if not all of the claims. Mr Myers also set out a chronology of what he considered to be the relevant dates and events preventing him from filing an application earlier than 6 May 2020.
Applications under s 47 and s 48 QCAT Act
- [16]In an email addressed to the Tribunal dated 27 July 2020 Mr Myers confirmed that he had received the application for miscellaneous matters filed by the respondent. Although he did not clearly address sections 47 and 48 of the QCAT Act, he did state that he felt it was inappropriate that someone other than the QBCC, namely their lawyers, prepared the application as the issue of legal representation had not been decided by the Tribunal at that stage.
- [17]Mr Myers’ response was to again ask the Tribunal to agree to his request for an extension of time to submit his review application. He relied upon the reasons outlined in his form 43 application. He also said that it was in the public interest for the matter to be heard because of the important issues of water conservation, avoidable carbon emissions and health and safety. He disagreed with the respondent’s submissions relating to the progress of his review application. He made some statements about his disappointment with the QCAT process, in particular, the form 23 instructions. He referred to the material needing to be lodged in hardcopy. He described QCAT’s online applications as not being “user friendly”. Mr Myers said that his application was more than 100 pages long, was complex to assemble and had to be taken to a printer to photocopy the five copies that he was required to submit and that “he was trying to do all of that from a laptop in Canberra with limited resources while caring for his mother.” The applicant accused the QBCC of running whatever technical, legal arguments they could to “belittle my form 23 and 42 applications”.
- [18]The applicant submitted that he was hopeful that QCAT would agree that the public interest issues that would be served by allowing the matter to be heard outweigh any argument to the contrary. In addition, he requested that the Tribunal make some allowances with regard to timeframes, stating that this would align with “ QCAT’s charter of accessibility, fairness, just outcomes and informal processes”.
Respondent’s submissions
Extension of time
- [19]In opposing the application to extend time, the respondent referred to the following:
The extent of the delay and whether there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay
- [20]The extension sought is described as considerable, some three and a half months. It was submitted that the applicant had not provided a full explanation for the delay in the filing of the application in QCAT on 6 May 2020.
Delay from 18 December 2019 to 9 March 2020
- [21]The QBCC submitted that the applicant had not substantiated his argument that the letter of 9 March 2020 from the Minister's Chief of Staff was a basis to suspend any statutory timeframe. The respondent submitted that the letter’s author stated that external review was through QCAT, as advised by the QBCC, and they encouraged the applicant to obtain legal advice for themselves. The author was not telling the applicant that they would certainly be able to have a review at QCAT. It also submitted that there was no reason for the applicant to have believed that speaking to the Minister’s office would suspend the time limit for a reviewable decision under the QCAT Act. The decision notice of 18 December 2019 clearly states that an application for an external review must be lodged within 28 days of receiving the decision consistent with the requirements of section 86D of the QBCC Act.
Delay from 10 March 2020 to 6 May 2020
- [22]It was the respondent’s submission that although the applicant relied on COVID-19 restrictions as an explanation for the delay, this of itself was not a sufficient excuse. The respondent submits that the applicant may well have been affected by restrictions put in place to fight the pandemic, however even in light of practical difficulties there were ways to progress the review application, for example, the registry accepts filing by fax or email and that information is supported on the covering page of form 23. It was the QBCC's submission that the ink shortages or delays were not sufficient to found the Tribunal exercising the discretion under section 61. It was further submitted that COVID-19 guidelines have called upon parties to be more flexible in their approach to progressing matters. However matters still needed to be progressed as efficiently as possible in the circumstances and this should apply equally to the applicant in the same way it does to all parties who are involved with proceedings in QCAT. Therefore it was up to the applicant to download the relevant forms, sign them electronically and follow up with the registry via email. The applicant did not do this. It was the QBCC’s submission that the Tribunal should not be satisfied that the applicant has provided satisfactory reasons to account for the delay. In summary, taking into account all of the other relevant considerations, this lack of satisfactory reasons to account for the delay should lead to the extension of time not being granted by the Tribunal.
The merits of the application and prospects of success
- [23]The respondent submitted that in the applicant’s review application the applicant asked to review two decisions, both the original decision and the internal review decision. As previously discussed in paragraph one of these reasons the Tribunal finds that it does not have jurisdiction to review the original decision and this part of the application is doomed to failure due to lack of jurisdiction.
The likelihood of prejudice to other parties
- [24]The QBCC submitted that there would be prejudice to the builder and any other affected party if an extension of time was allowed. If the extension was allowed the builder might need to be joined as an affected party to the review application or at least be informed a review was occurring. The builder may then be put to the expense of participating in a review for a matter it was entitled to consider had been concluded. It was also noted that the QBCC would suffer prejudice as it had also considered that the process had concluded and therefore is now going to be put to the inconvenience and cost of appearing in a matter that they had rightly considered to be concluded some time ago.
Whether the extension of time is in the interests of justice
- [25]When considering all the factors together it is submitted that they lead to the interests of justice lying with the refusal of an extension of time to the applicant. The time limits for review apply equally to all applicants and the underlying intent was that review proceedings are to be commenced promptly. Finally, there needs to be a compelling explanation for the length of delay. Interested parties such as the QBCC and the builder had every right to believe that the matter involving the applicant had in fact been concluded due to the application of statutory timelines. In these circumstances there appears to be no compelling explanation for the delay.
Sections 47 and 48 QCAT Act
- [26]The respondent’s submissions in relation to the strikeout application referred to the applicant seeking to review both the original decision and the review decision. It was submitted that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review the original decision; it was not a reviewable decision. It was submitted that the original decision should be struck out of any claim about the application for review. The respondent submitted that the basis for doing this was under section 47(1)(a) of the QCAT Act. This section provides for a matter being struck out due to being vexatious, frivolous or misconceived. In these circumstances the applicant’s attempt to include an unreviewable decision in the review application presumably may be categorised as misconceived as the Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to hear the matter.
- [27]It was further submitted that the Tribunal should find that the application for the internal review decision to be reviewed by the Tribunal should also be struck out under section 48(1)(b) which deals with the applicant not complying with the Act or enabling Act or rules under the QCAT Act. In this case the applicant has not complied with the statutory time limit for filing of an application and failed to a provide reasonable excuse for this failure.
Discussion
- [28]The relevant factors to be considered by the Tribunal in determining whether an extension of time should be granted were summarised in Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor [2011] QCAT 229. This usually calls for some analysis of the factors considered in combination (see Uren v Harcourts Broadbeach Waters [2018] QCATA 9):
The extent of the delay and whether there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay
- [29]Although the length of the delay could be considered as being a long period of time this is only one of the factors to be considered by the Tribunal. The applicant has provided no reasonable explanation for his failure to bring the application within time. He submits that he thought the application was delayed while he pursued a complaint about the QBCC with a Minister of the Crown. Mr Myers provides no further detail as to how he concluded that a letter to a Minister would override any statutory obligations with regard to time limits and reviews. He fails to explain why his situation is different to the one that is outlined about his rights of appeal in the notice of decision of 18 December 2019. The applicant attached to his application some information about his contact with the Minister's Chief of Staff. This letter does not go as far as the applicant contends. On a plain reading of the content the Minister's Chief of Staff is only referring back to information the applicant received from the QBCC in their decision of 18 December 2019. There is no reasonable basis for accepting that what the Minister's Chief of Staff is saying is that the time limit has been extended. In any event the applicant fails to make submissions as to why this would be relevant should this have occurred. A staff member of the Executive arm of government cannot override legislation that has been passed by parliament. The time limits are legislatively enshrined and cannot be changed by a person working for a Minister. For the sake of complete clarity, I repeat that I do not accept that the Minister’s Chief of Staff’s letter says that the time limit has been extended or suspended.
- [30]Mr Myers discussed the impact of COVID-19 and his need to travel to Canberra to look after his mother. Even considering the limitations of being locked down and the difficulties he had with ink in his mother's printer it is very clear to see that many other people suffered such similar deprivations during the COVID-19 restrictions being in place. This of itself is not enough to convince the Tribunal that he has a reasonable excuse for his failure to file his application within time.
- [31]The applicant is critical of the QCAT system. He is entitled to express his own views and his own difficulties. QCAT is a jurisdiction where most applicants are unrepresented and similar difficulties with technology have not proved to be insurmountable for those people. I do not accept that Australia Post’s failure to deliver printer ink to Mr Myers in a timely manner is a sufficient reason to satisfy me that it is in the interests of justice for this matter to be granted an extension of time.
- [32]The applicant submits that his is a matter that has a wider application and it is for the greater public good that it be heard. Mr Myers referred to various issues such as water conservation, avoidable carbon emissions and health and safety. The matter before the Tribunal is an application to review an administrative decision. This is not a class action, nor is it a submission to parliament regarding issues such as the environment. Mr Myers has produced no cogent evidentiary proof of this review being a matter of public interest. His mere claim that it is does not amount to evidence. Even if it is accepted that the applicant has little knowledge of tribunal processes, had difficulties with them and he was in communication with the Minister’s office, it is noted that it is clearly set out in the legislation and in the copy of the internal decision sent to him by the QBCC that QCAT is the correct body to direct an application for review to. The time period to make an application is 28 days. This is clearly advised in the QBCC’S letter to Mr Myers of 18 December 2019.
- [33]I accept the submission of the respondent that Mr Myers does not fully explain his failure to file in QCAT until 6 May 2020. Mr Myers’ dealings with the Minister’s office finished long before he filed his application in QCAT. Any “confusion” only accounts for a small part of the delay period and the applicant did not fully explain the reason for his delay in filing an application in QCAT. COVID-19 restrictions are considered by the Tribunal however they do not amount to a wholesale abandonment of the statutory time limits set by legislation.
- [34]Nothing in Mr Myers’ application for an extension of time rises to the standard of being able to be described as a satisfactory explanation for the delay. This factor and the other listed criteria are to be considered in whether to grant this extension of time. A satisfactory explanation (or “good reason”) is required to account for the delay. In this case the applicant gave no reasonable account of why he delayed the filing of his application even after he concluded his contact with the Minister’s office. His blaming of Australia Post for slow delivery of printer ink is not an acceptable excuse for his delay in filing. How he undertook the filing of his application was largely a matter for him within the confines of QCAT rules. Additionally, he was told in writing by the QBCC that the relevant review body was QCAT and an application must be made within 28 days of the review decision being issued. Mr Myers’ submissions fail to address the relevant factors. He failed to fully address why he should be granted an extension of time, or alternatively, he failed to identify any factors which compel the Tribunal to grant an extension of time.
The merits of the application and prospects of success
- [35]Although the material filed in no way can act as a substitute for a full hearing of the relevant matters, it is difficult to fully assess the applicant’s case at this early stage of proceedings. As previously discussed, any application for review of the original decision is without merit. This is not a reviewable decision and the Tribunal is not seized of the jurisdiction to hear this matter. With the review decision of 18 December 2019 it is difficult to foresee all evidence that would be submitted and at this early stage this cannot form a conclusion, however I do note that this is but one factor to be considered in combination.
The likelihood of prejudice to other parties
- [36]I refer to the comments of McHugh J in Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor that the ‘effect of delay on the quality of justice is no doubt one of the most important influences motivating a legislature to enact limitation periods for commencing actions’.[9]
- [37]I accept the respondent’s submissions relating to the interests of the builder and the QBCC. I accept that both parties have an interest in the outcome of these proceedings. It is reasonable to consider that the builder may potentially be joined as a party to any substantive proceedings in this matter. In these circumstances the builder is entitled to assume that matters concerning the applicant have been concluded and that no direction to rectify any defective work that was the subject of the applicant’s claim will now be issued. I find that the potential prejudice to the builder is a proper consideration for me in deciding whether to grant this extension of time under section 61 of the QCAT Act. I also consider that as per the decision of Jensen [10] the respondent should not be hampered in the exercise of their rights or their rights be detrimentally affected by a grant of an extension of time to the applicant.
Whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension
- [38]This principle usually calls for some analysis of the above factors considered in combination. After consideration of all of the information before me I find that it is not in the interests of justice or the public interest for the applicant to be permitted to pursue review proceedings where at least one part of such application is without merit and it is made some number of months outside of the statutory period for filing such a claim. I am satisfied that the applicant has failed to provide an adequate excuse for this lengthy delay.
- [39]Regarding what is the public interest I refer to the following comments:
The public interest would not be served if an extension of time to file the application was allowed in circumstances where the delay is considerable and a satisfactory explanation for the delay has not been provided. The appropriate order having considered all of the circumstances and the written submissions filed is that the application to extend time for filing the application for review is refused.[11]
- [40]The delay in this case is considerable and the applicant has not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. I do not find there is merit in employing public resources to further prosecute this case Mr Myers has not provided support for his statement that it is in the public interest that this matter be granted an extension of time.
Sections 47 and 48 QCAT Act
- [41]In this matter the proceedings are misconceived due to them being brought out of time with no adequate excuse. They also lack substance in some part due to the applicant either trying to review a decision that is not reviewable or is statute barred. The Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to entertain a review of the original decision as it has been subject to an internal review decision. I accept the respondent’s submissions that an application for a review of the original decision by the Tribunal, when there is no jurisdiction, may be characterised as a misconceived application. As a consequence of my findings on the extension of time and for the sake of completeness, pursuant to the provisions of section 47 of the QCAT Act the matter is dismissed/struck out. Section 48 of the QCAT Act provides that where one party unnecessarily disadvantages another party to a proceeding the proceedings may be dismissed. Relevantly in this case the QBCC states that they have been disadvantaged by the applicant not complying with the QBCC Act and QCAT Act or rules. I accept that this is the case and the respondent has made submissions about the prejudice not only to them but also to other parties. I accept those submissions. The applicant has failed to fully address these issues and has not made submissions in relation to the dismissal or striking out beyond saying that he disagrees with what they have to say.
- [42]The consequence for the applicant’s primary application to have the decision of the QBCC reviewed is that this application has failed to comply with the QCAT Act in terms of the time frame for filing an application for review. This means the application is not a valid application before the Tribunal and cannot be progressed as it is not accepted by the Tribunal becauseno leave has been given to extend the time allowed for the filing of this application.
- [43]The application to extend or shorten a time limit or for waiver of compliance with procedural requirements filed 6 May 2020 is dismissed and therefore the application for review 6 May 20202020 is not properly before the Tribunal and must therefore also be dismissed.
- [44]Although my findings relating to the application for an extension of time and the substantive application mean that I do not need to make further orders, for the sake of completeness I state that by operation of orders 1 and 2 of these orders the application for miscellaneous matters filed on 16 July 2020 is granted.
- [45]Pursuant to section 47 of the QCAT Act this application is misconceived in two ways: (i) by asking for review of a decision (the original decision) that is not within the jurisdiction of QCAT to hear; and (ii) by filing almost three and a half months out of time without reasonable excuse. I therefore grant the application for dismissal of the application under section 47 of the QCAT Act. With regard to section 48 of the QCAT Act I accept the submissions of the respondent that they have been disadvantaged by the applicant’s actions i.e. by Mr Myers’ non-compliance with the QCAT Act, the enabling Act or rules. Also, regarding the original decision the Tribunal is not seized of the jurisdiction to review that decision.
- [46]In the circumstances, the application for an extension of time should be refused and the application to review a decision dismissed.
Orders
- The application for an extension of time filed on 6 May 2020 is refused.
- The application to review a decision filed on 6 May 2020 is dismissed.
- By operation of orders 1 and 2 of these orders the application for miscellaneous matters filed on 16 July 2020 is granted.
Footnotes
[1]QCAT Act, s 33(4)(a).
[2]Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 38.
[3]Reeve v Hamlyn [2015] QCATA 133, [36] (footnotes omitted).
[4][2018] QCAT 258.
[5][2016] QCAT 294.
[6]Felstead, [39].
[7]Felstead, [76].
[8][2019] QCAT 38, [22] – [24].
[9](1996) 186 CLR 541, 552.
[10](2017) QCAT 232
[11]Braunberger v Assistant Commissioner Les Hopkins [2014] QCAT 34.