Hyland v Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
[2022] QCAT 385
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
- Hyland v Department of Agriculture and Fisheries[2022] QCAT 385
- Add to List
Hyland v Department of Agriculture and Fisheries[2022] QCAT 385
Hyland v Department of Agriculture and Fisheries[2022] QCAT 385
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Hyland v Department of Agriculture and Fisheries [2022] QCAT 385 |
PARTIES: | PAUL ALLAN SAMUEL HYLAND (applicant) v DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | GAR692-21 and GAR693-21 |
MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 17 November 2022` |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Cranwell |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where the applicant filed applications to review a decision out of time – where the applicant filed applications for an extension of time – whether applications for an extension of time should be granted Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 33, s 61 Cardillo v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCAT 574 Coppens v Water Wise Design Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 309 |
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: | 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
- [1]On 13 September 2021, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (‘the Department) made two separate decisions in respect of Mr Hyland. One decision related to the issue of C1-ITQ units, and the other related to the allocation of regional trawl effort units.
- [2]The Department’s decisions each contained the following statement:
If you are not satisfied with the decision of the reviewing officer, you can seek an external review by making application to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) within 28 days of receiving the notice of the internal review decision.
- [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]On 15 December 2021, Mr Hyland filed two applications with the Tribunal seeking review of the respective decisions made by the Department. Mr Hyland indicated in Part B of the application forms that he received the decisions on 28 September 2021. The applications for review were therefore required to be made by 26 October 2021. As the applications were filed out of time, Ms Hyland also filed applications for an extension of time on 19 January 2022.
- [5]Section 61 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘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.
- [6]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]
- (a)Whether a satisfactory explanation (or “good reason”) is shown to account for the delay.
- (b)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).
- (c)Prejudice to adverse parties.
- (d)Length of the delay, noting that a short delay is usually easier to excuse than a lengthy one.
- (e)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.
- (a)
- [7]
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
- [8]Mr Hyland’s applications for an extension of time each contain the following statement:
Received the email & documentation request from QCAT on Thursday the 13th at 3.00 o’clock in afternoon whilst out at sea. I have been unavailable to respond to emails till Tuesday the 18th. I have responded and request the assistance of QCAT in order to be in a position to respond & prepare my case.
- [9]No further submissions were filed by Mr Hyland.
- [10]With all due respect to Mr Hyland, he has not provided any explanation as to why it took him until 15 December 2021 to file the application for review. Even accepting that he was not notified until 28 September 2021, with the consequence that his applications for review were required to be made by 26 October 2021, Mr Hyland was still 50 days out of time. His explanation, such as it is, accounts for only a five day period. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that Mr Hyland has provided a satisfactory explanation for his delay.
Length of delay
- [11]As noted above, the length of Mr Hyland’s delay was 50 days. In the context of a 28 day time limit, I consider a 50 day delay to be to be substantial.
The strength of the case
- [12]I am not in a position on this application to make findings on the issues for determination in the substantive reviews should the extensions of time be granted. However, in order to give Mr Hyland every benefit of the doubt, I will assume that his cases have some merit.
Prejudice to adverse parties
- [13]The Department has not pointed to any specific prejudice.
Interests of justice
- [14]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 Mr Hyland to file these applications after a substantial delay.
Conclusion
- [15]The absence of prejudice to the Department and the possibility of some merit to Mr Hyland’s cases point in favour of extending the time for Mr Hyland to apply for review of the Department’s decisions.
- [16]However, I am of the view that these factors are outweighed by the absence of a satisfactory explanation for what was a substantial delay, and the interests of justice. 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] Mr Hyland has not done this.
- [17]The applications for an extension of time are refused. The applications to review a decision are therefore dismissed.