Alfalasi v The Star Entertainment Group t/as Treasury Brisbane
[2022] QCAT 73
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
- Alfalasi v The Star Entertainment Group t/as Treasury Brisbane[2022] QCAT 73
- Add to List
Alfalasi v The Star Entertainment Group t/as Treasury Brisbane[2022] QCAT 73
Alfalasi v The Star Entertainment Group t/as Treasury Brisbane[2022] QCAT 73
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Alfalasi v The Star Entertainment Group t/as Treasury Brisbane [2022] QCAT 73 |
PARTIES: | ahmad alfalasi (applicant) v the star entertainment t/as treasury brisbane (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | GAR653-21 |
MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
REASONS DELIVERED ON: | 8 March 2022 |
DECISION DATE: | 8 February 2022 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Browne |
ORDERS: | The application to review a decision filed 22 November 2021 is dismissed pursuant to s 48 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) due to non-compliance with the Tribunal’s Directions. |
CATCHWORDS: | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – whether jurisdiction to review decision to prohibit entry under the Casino Control Act 1982 (Qld) – where tribunal initiated application to dismiss the application for review – where applicant fails to comply with tribunal directions – whether application for review should be dismissed Casino Control Act 1982 (Qld), s 91A Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 17, s 47, s 48 Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Breezeway Developments Pty Ltd v ADG Hydraulics Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 69 |
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
- [1]Effective from 27 October 2021, Mr Alfalasi was prohibited from trying to enter, entering or staying or trying to stay anywhere in or around either the Treasury Brisbane or The Star Gold Coast.
- [2]Mr Alfalasi was notified about the decision to prohibit his entry by letter dated 27 October 2021 received from the Star Entertainment Group t/as Treasury Brisbane. Relevantly, Star Entertainment advised Mr Alfalasi that pursuant to common law rights as an occupier of land, his licence is withdrawn effective from 27 October 2021. Further to that, Star Entertainment advised Mr Alfalasi that the ‘notice’ to prohibit his entry is issued to him following his recent behaviour at the relevant venue which was considered to be ‘unacceptable’.
- [3]On 22 November 2021, Mr Alfalasi applied to the Tribunal to review the decision of 27 October 2021 to prohibit his entry to the relevant venue.
- [4]On 1 December 2021, the Tribunal initiated an application to dismiss Mr Alfalasi’s application to review pursuant to s 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘the QCAT Act’) on the basis that the application to review is misconceived. This is because the Tribunal only has the power to review a reviewable decision as conferred on it by an enabling Act including a decision as provided under s 91A of the Casino Control Act 1982 (Qld) (‘the Casino Act’).[1] Relevantly, s 91A(2) of the Casino Act details the decisions that a person may apply to the Tribunal to review that includes a decision of a casino operator or a casino manager, under 93A to give the person an exclusion direction or a decision under s 99 refusing to revoke an exclusion direction given to the person.
- [5]On 1 December 2021, the Tribunal directed Mr Alfalasi to file in the Tribunal written submissions addressing the following by ‘4:00pm on 5 January 2022’:
- (a)identify the reviewable decision made under an enabling Act including a decision as provided under s 91A of the Casino Act, that Mr Alfalasi seeks to review in the Tribunal;
- (b)identify the relevant sections of the enabling Act that Mr Alfalasi says confers power on the Tribunal to review the reviewable decision; and
- (c)identify the order sought on review with reference to the relevant sections of the enabling Act and the QCAT Act that Mr Alfalasi says gives the Tribunal the power to make the order sought on review.
- (a)
- [6]The Tribunal also directed that if Mr Alfalasi fails to comply with the directions detailed above by ‘4:00pm on 5 January 2022’ the application to review may be dismissed by the Tribunal pursuant to s 48 of the QCAT Act due to non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions without further notice to the parties.
- [7]The issue that now arises in relation to Mr Alfalasi’s application to review is whether or not the Tribunal should dismiss the application pursuant to s 48 of the QCAT Act due to non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions. Relevantly, the Tribunal’s record reflects that Mr Alfalasi failed to comply with the Tribunal’s directions dated 1 December 2021 by ‘4:00pm on 5 January 2022’.
The power to dismiss under s 48 of the QCAT Act
- [8]In determining whether to dismiss Mr Alfalasi’s application for review pursuant to s 48 of the QCAT Act, I have considered whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decision of 27 October 2021.
- [9]In the present matter, there is no power to review a decision under the Casino Act to prohibit Mr Alfalasi’s entry to either Treasury Brisbane or The Star Gold Coast. The Tribunal only has jurisdiction to review a decision as conferred on it by an enabling Act including the Casino Act. Here, the decision to refuse Mr Alfalasi’s entry pursuant to common law rights as an occupier of land is neither a decision identified under s 91A(2) of the Casino Act to give the person an exclusion direction (under s 93A) or to refuse to revoke an exclusion direction given (under s 99).
- [10]I am satisfied that Mr Alfalasi has had an opportunity to address the Tribunal about whether it has the power to review the decision of 27 October 2021. Further to that, I am satisfied that Mr Alfalasi has failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his non-compliance with the Tribunal’s Directions dated 1 December 2021.
- [11]Section 48 of the QCAT Act permits the Tribunal, in certain circumstances, to order that a proceeding be dismissed. Relevantly, the Tribunal may dismiss a proceeding if satisfied that a party to a proceeding is acting in a way that unnecessarily disadvantages another party in the proceeding including by not complying with a tribunal order or directions without reasonable excuse.
- [12]I am satisfied that Mr Alfalasi has failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions. Mr Alfalasi has failed to take care in his dealings with the Tribunal.[2] He did not take the necessary steps to progress his matter; he did not respond to the Tribunal’s directions that required him to consider the issue of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decision of 27 October 2021.
- [13]I am satisfied that Mr Alfalasi’s non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions has caused disadvantage to the respondent, Star Entertainment for the purposes of s 48(1) of the QCAT Act. As discussed above, the letter dated 27 October 2021 makes it clear to Mr Alfalasi that Star Entertainment is exercising its common law rights as occupier of land to withdraw his licence and to prohibit his entry.
- [14]In exercising my discretion to dismiss the application for review, I take into account the Tribunal’s objectives set out under s 3 of the QCAT Act to, amongst other things, deal with matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick. I order that the application to review a decision filed 22 November 2021 is dismissed pursuant to s 48 of the QCAT Act due to non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions.