Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2025
  4. Hopkins v Department of Agriculture and Fisheries - [2025] QCAT 176

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Hopkins v Department of Agriculture and Fisheries[2025] QCAT 176

Hopkins v Department of Agriculture and Fisheries[2025] QCAT 176

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Hopkins v Department of Agriculture and Fisheries [2025] QCAT 176

PARTIES:

craig danson hopkins

(applicant)

v

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

GAR535-21

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

14 April 2025

HEARING DATE:

27 March 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Scott-Mackenzie

ORDERS:

1. The application to the Tribunal to review the decisions of the respondent on the number of ENL-ITQ units to be issue to the applicant under section 5 of schedule 2B to the Fisheries (General) Regulation 2019 (Qld) worked out using the formula in section 11 of the schedule and the number of C1-ITQ units to be issue to him under section 5 of schedule 2C to the Regulation worked out using the formula in section 11 of the schedule is dismissed.

2. The internal review decisions of the chief executive made 25 August 2021 on the applicant’s applications made 30 April 2021 and 16 and 21 May 2021:

  1. to amend and substitute the respondent’s decision on the applicant’s eligible reported catch for ENL-ITQ units under sections 8(1) and 9(1) of schedule 2B to the Regulation respectively; and
  2. to amend and substitute the respondent’s decision on the applicant’s eligible reported catch for C1-ITQ units under sections 8(1) and 9(1) of schedule 2C,

are confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

PRIMARY INDUSTRY – CRAB AND FISH – REGULATION – PERMIT OR LICENCES – where applicant applies to review decisions for crab and fish quotas

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – where respondent claims decisions not subject to internal or external review – where relief sought by the applicant is not available – whether there is a degree of certainty about the ultimate outcome of the proceeding if it is allowed to go to a hearing in the ordinary way – whether there is a factual dispute between the parties – whether the proceeding should be confirmed

Fisheries Act 1994 (Qld), s 3, s 3A, sch 11

Fisheries (Commercial Fisheries) Regulation 2019 (Qld), sch 9

Fisheries (General) Regulation 2019 (Qld), s 187, s 188, s 189, s 191, s 192, sch 2B, sch 2C

Hopkins v Department of Agriculture and Fisheries [2023] QCAT 451

Lukaszewicz v Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (Qld) [2023] QCAT 48

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Ms K McAuliffe of Counsel, instructed by the Department of Primary Industries (formerly the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Application

  1. [1]
    On 8 September 2021 the applicant (‘Mr Hopkins’) made application to the Tribunal to review a decision of the respondent (‘Department’) made 25 August 2021 (‘internal review decision’) to confirm decisions made by the Department’s chief executive (‘chief executive’) on 30 July 2021 (‘original decisions’) (‘application to review’). The original decisions are summarised in paragraph [9] and [10] of these reasons for decision, under the heading, ‘Original decisions’.
  2. [2]
    The internal review decision is summarised in paragraphs [11] and [12] of these reasons for decision, under the heading, ‘Internal review decision’.
  3. [3]
    The facts Mr Hopkins thinks are important set out in the application to review and the documents accompanying the application are summarised in paragraphs [13] - [15] of these reasons for decision.

Background

  1. [4]
    Mr Hopkins held the following seven commercial fishing licences:
  • 20071 for boat mark FYCF;
  • 15620 for boat mark FXLN;
  • 18886 for boat mark FM9;
  • 17740 for boat mark FVEB;
  • 19702 for boat mark FWKK;
  • 5783 for boat mark FQAB; and
  • 19684 for boat mark FXHD.
  1. [5]
    On 28 April 2021 Mr Hopkins was given a notice informing him his eligible reported catch for each eligible licence is as follows:

C1-ITQ

ENL-ITQ

Licence no. (boat mark)

East coast mud crab (EC1)

Blue swimmer crab (BC1)

Grey mackerel, region 5

King threadfin, region 5

School mackerel, region 5

Whiting, region 5

20071 (FYCF)

7,294

0

0

0

0

0

15620 (FXLN)

10,633

4,960

2,862

453

15,470

518

18886 (FM9)

24,066

232

0

0

0

0

17740 (FVEB)

18,449

2,972

0

0

0

0

19702 (FWKK)

14,750

0

0

0

0

0

5783 (FQAB)

9,807

209

0

0

0

1,240

19684 (FXHD)

6,862

0

0

0

0

0

  1. [6]
    On 30 April 2021 Mr Hopkins made application to the chief executive for substitution of his ENL-ITQ eligible reported catch of grey mackerel and school mackerel for boat mark FXLN based on not taking prescribed species due to natural disaster. ENL-ITQ unit means a GM5-ITQ unit, SCM5-ITQ unit or WT5-ITQ unit.[1] The quota symbols mean:

GM5-ITQ Grey Mackerel - Region 5

SCM5-ITQ School Mackerel - Region 5

WT5-ITQ Sand Whiting - Region 5.

  1. [7]
    On 16 May 2021 Mr Hopkins made application to the Department for the following:
  1. amendment of his ENL-ITQ eligible reported catch of grey mackerel and school mackerel for boat mark FXLN based on evidence an error was made in deciding his eligible reported catch. He provided logbooks and a statutory declaration as evidence;
  2. substitution of his C1-ITQ eligible reported catch of east coast mud crabs and blue swimmer crabs for boat mark FXHD based on him not taking prescribed crab due to natural disaster. C1-ITQ unit means a BC1-ITQ unit, EC1-ITQ unit or GC1-ITQ unit.[2] The quota symbols mean:

BC1-ITQ Blue Swimmer Crab - East Coast

EC1-ITQ Mud Crab - East Coast

GC1-ITQ Mud Crab – Gulf; and

  1. substitution of his C1-ITQ eligible reported catch of east coast mud crabs and blue swimmer crabs for boat marks FM9, FQAB, FVEB, FWKK, FXLN and FYCF based on him not taking prescribed crab due to illness or injury. He provided a medical certificate as evidence.
  1. [8]
    Then, on 21 May 2021 Mr Hopkins made application to the chief executive for amendment of his C1-ITQ eligible reported catch of east coast mud crabs and blue swimmer crabs for boat mark FXLN based on evidence an error was made in deciding his eligible reported catch. He provided new logbook sheets as evidence.

Original decisions

  1. [9]
    On 30 July 2021 the chief executive decided:
    1. not to amend Mr Hopkins’s C1-ITQ eligible reported catch for boat mark FXLN because the evidence was not sufficient to indicate an error in reported catch;
  1. not to amend his ENL-ITQ eligible reported catch for boat mark FXLN because the evidence was not sufficient to indicate an error in reported catch;
  2. not to substitute his C1-ITQ eligible reported catch for boat marks FXHD, FM9, FQAB, FVEB, FWKK, FXLN and FYCF because his catch history did not meet the minimum requirements for the number of years with nil catch;
  3. not to substitute his ENL-ITQ eligible reported catch for boat mark FXLN because his catch history did not meet the minimum requirements for the number of years with nil catch.
  1. [10]
    On the same date, the chief executive decided to issue to Mr Hopkins the ENL-ITQ units and C1- ITQ units for all of his eligible licences as follows:

C1-ITQ

ENL-ITQ

East coast mud crab (EC1)

Blue swimmer crab (BC1)

Grey mackerel, region 5

King threadfin, region 5

School mackerel, region 5

Whiting, region 5

Units

501

25

537

51

3,288

313

Pro-rata kg for the first year (10 months)

11,609.14

888.61

537

51.02

3,285.05

312.90

Internal review decision

  1. [11]
    On 5 August 2021 Mr Hopkins made application to the Department for internal review of the original decisions. The application was made on the grounds of the information provided by Mr Hopkins to Queensland Rural Industry Development Authority in April 2021, including illness and natural disasters.  The decision-maker reviewed the original decisions and decided to confirm the decisions (‘internal review decisions’).
  2. [12]
    In the internal review decision, the decision-maker states the process for calculating and allocating individual transferable quota (ITQ) is set out in schedule 2B to the Fisheries (General) Regulation 2019 (Qld) for east coast inshore fishery and schedule 2C for crab fisheries.  The decision-maker then continues:

This legislated process was applied equally to all eligible fishers. The process involved oversight by many different officers across Fisheries Queensland so that no one person could influence a particular outcome. The QRIDA process, that you applied for, also enabled these matters to be independently reviewed outside Fisheries Queensland on application.

Your circumstances have been reviewed carefully including illness, natural disasters, biosecurity issues, theft and appropriateness of decision making. I note you have not provided any additional or new information that has not been previously provided during your applications for amendment and substitution of eligible reported catch. In reviewing the information provided, I recognise that some of your licences have been subject to extenuating circumstances as a result of illness and/or natural disasters. However, the legislation does not provide for substitution or amendment in your circumstance. The explanation of the reasons, which vary between the licences held by you, is outlined in each amendment and substitution notice dated 30 July 2021. The Fisheries (General) Regulation 2019 outlines the formula to calculate the number of ITQ units that are issued to an eligible person. As a result, the legislation does not provide scope for making individual decisions based on a person’s financial or working life circumstances.[3]

Application to review

  1. [13]
    In the application to review, Mr Hopkins briefly describes the facts he thinks are important in the following terms:

I need an honest appraisal of this quota issue as this has not been forthcoming from F.Q. as this whole process has been corrupted from the start.  Favouritism & cronyism has been rife throughout the whole process.  I will be making a complaint to the CCC at the end of this.

  1. [14]
    In lengthy submissions, dated 6 September 2021 and filed with the application to review, Mr Hopkins asserts Fisheries Queensland “… has not been entirely honest in its dealings with commercial fishermen …”
  2. [15]
    Also filed with the application to review is a letter from Mr Hopkins dated 16 May 2021. In the letter, Mr Hopkins is highly critical of the quotas introduced by Fisheries Queensland in the light of four identified events and the theft of crab product.  He refers to what are personal circumstances.

Application to dismiss the proceeding

  1. [16]
    On 25 May 2022 the Department made application to the Tribunal to dismiss the proceeding. The application, on 6 November 2023, was dismissed.[4]

Legislation

  1. [17]
    The main purpose of the Fisheries Act is set out in section 3(1). It is to provide for the use, conservation and enhancement of the community’s fisheries resources and fish habitats in a way that seeks to:
  1. apply and balance the principles of ecologically sustainable development; and
  1. promote ecologically sustainable development.

In balancing the principles, each principle is to be given the relative emphasis appropriate in the circumstances, having regard to ensuring access to the fisheries resources is allocated in a way that maximises the potential economic, social and cultural benefits to the community.[5]

  1. [18]
    The main purpose of the Act is to be primarily achieved by providing for:
  1. the management and protection of fish habitats; and
  1. the management of commercial, charter, recreational and indigenous fishing; and
  1. the management of aquaculture.[6]
  1. [19]
    The main purpose is to be achieved, so far as is practicable:
  1. in consultation with, and having regard to the views and interests of, all persons involved in commercial, charter, recreational or indigenous fishing and the community generally; and
  1. using a transparent and responsive approach to the management of access to fisheries resources.[7]
  1. [20]
    The issue of ENL-ITQ units is authorised by section 58B of the Fisheries (General) Regulation. It provides:
  1. the chief executive must issue ENL-ITQ units under schedule 2B; and
  1. the chief executive must not issue any ENL-ITQ units after 31 August 2021.
  1. [21]
    C1-ITQ units are issued by the chief executive under schedule 2C. The chief executive must not issue any hand-harvest ITQ units after 31 August 2021.

ENL-ITQ units

  1. [22]
    The chief executive was required to issue to each eligible person the number of ENL-ITQ units worked out under division 2 of schedule 2B for the person on or before 31 August 2021.[8] The following terms in the schedule are defined in section 1:

eligible person, for ENL-ITQ units, means a person who holds an eligible licence for the units on 22 April 2021.

eligible licence, for ENL-ITQ units, means a relevant licence for the ENL-ITQ units under which at least 100 kilograms of prescribed ENL-ITQ fish was:

  1. taken, in the combined area of all prescribed ENL management regions, in the prescribed years; and
  2. reported to the chief executive under an information requirement before 1 July 2018.

relevant licence, for ENL-ITQ units, means a licence that has written on it a fishery symbol stated for the ENL-ITQ units in the part 2 of schedule 9 to the Fisheries (Commercial Fisheries) Regulation 2019 (Qld).

prescribed year means a calendar year starting on 1 January of 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 or 2017.

  1. [23]
    The units issued under the schedule took effect on 1 September 2021.[9]
  2. [24]
    Division 2 of part 2 of schedule 2B of the Fisheries (General) Regulation is important in the context of the application to review. Section 5 sets out the process for deciding the number of ENL-ITQ units to be issued to an eligible person.  It provides:

The chief executive must decide the number of ENL-ITQ units to be issued to an eligible person as follows:

  1. the chief executive must decide, under section 6, the eligible person’s eligible reported catch for the units;
  2. the chief executive must give the eligible person an opportunity to apply for an amendment or substitution of the chief executive’s decision under section 6, as provided under sections 7 to 9;
  3. the chief executive must decide the total reported catch for the units under section 10;
  4. the chief executive must apply the formula and process in section 11 to decide the number of ENL-ITQ units to be issued to the eligible person.
  1. [25]
    An eligible person’s reported catch for ENT-ITQ units is decided in accordance with section 6. It provides:
    1. An eligible person’s reported catch for ENL-ITQ units for a prescribed year is the amount of the prescribed ENL-ITQ fish:
  1. taken in the prescribed ENL management region in the year under the eligible licence held by the person; and
  2. reported to the chief executive under an information requirement before 1 July 2018.
    1. The chief executive must decide an eligible person’s eligible reported catch for ENL-ITQ units by adding up the person’s reported catch for the units for the 4 prescribed years with the highest reported catch for the units.
  1. [26]
    It is to be observed subsection (2) of section 6 is couched in mandatory terms.
  2. [27]
    After deciding an eligible person’s eligible reported catch for ENL-ITQ units under section 6 of schedule 2B, the chief executive must give the person a written notice.
  3. [28]
    The eligible person, under and by virtue of section 8(1), may apply to the chief executive to amend the chief executive’s decision under section 6(3) of schedule 2B if the chief executive has made an error in the details mentioned in section 7(1)(a) of the schedule, the details of the person’s reported catch for the units for each prescribed year.
  4. [29]
    Also, the person, under and by virtue of section 8(1),  may apply to the chief executive to substitute the chief executive’s decision on limited grounds. Those grounds are:
  1. if the prescribed ENL-ITQ fish was not taken in the prescribed ENL management region under the eligible licence in 2, 3 or 4 prescribed years (each a nil history year); and
  1. if either of the following applies for each nil history year (each a substitution reason for the nil history year):
  1. the eligible person did not take prescribed ENL-ITQ fish in the prescribed ENL management region because of a natural disaster or a biosecurity event under the Biosecurity Act 2014 (Qld);
  1. the eligible person did not take fish in any commercial fishery because of the person’s illness or injury.[10]
  1. [30]
    It is to be recalled Mr Hopkins applied to the Department for:
  1. amendment of his ENL-ITQ eligible reported catch of grey mackerel and school mackerel for boat mark FXLN based on evidence an error was made in deciding his eligible reported catch.
  2. substitution of his ENL-ITQ eligible reported catch of grey mackerel and school mackerel for boat mark FXLN based on not taking prescribed species due to natural disaster; and
  1. [31]
    If application is made by the eligible person under section 8(1) or 9(1) of schedule 2B, the chief executive must:
  1. amend or substitute the chief executive’s decision under section 6(2) of schedule 2B; or
  1. decide not to amend or substitute the chief executive’s decision under section 6(2) of schedule 2B.[11]
  1. [32]
    The chief executive must give the eligible person an information notice for the chief executive’s decision under sections 8(3) and 9(3) of schedule 2B.[12]
  2. [33]
    The number of ENT-ITQ units to be issued to an eligible person is the number worked out using the formula in section 11(1). The formula is:

ENL-ITQ = EC x NS

TC

where:

ENL-ITQ means the number of ENL-ITQ units to be issued to the eligible person.

EC means the eligible person’s eligible reported catch for the ENL-ITQ units worked out under section 6 and, if applicable, as amended under section 8 or substituted under section 9.

N means the following number:

  1. for BM1-ITQ units - 5,580;
  1. or BM2-ITQ units - 35,038;
  1. for BM3-ITQ units - 127,962;
  1. for BM4-ITQ units - 54,275;
  1. for BM5-ITQ units - 20,744;
  1. for GM1-ITQ units - 1,091;
  1. for GM2-ITQ units - 26,805;
  1. for GM3-ITQ units - 67,133;
  1. for GM4-ITQ units - 13,625;
  1. for GM5-ITQ units - 20,347;

(k) for KT1-ITQ units - 2,167;

(l) for KT2-ITQ units - 13,619;

(m) for KT3-ITQ units - 11,231;

(n) for KT4-ITQ units - 23,600;

(o) for KT5-ITQ units - 21,383;

(p) for SM5-ITQ units - 69,100;

(q) for WT5-ITQ units - 162,000.

TC means the total reported catch for the ENL-ITQ units worked out under section 10.

  1. [34]
    A number not a whole number is taken to the nearest whole number, rounded up.[13]

C1-ITQ units

  1. [35]
    The chief executive, once again, was required to issue to each eligible person the number of C1-ITQ units worked out under division 2 for the person on or before 31 August 2021.[14] The following terms in the schedule are defined in section 1:

eligible licence means a C1 licence.

eligible person means a person who holds an eligible licence on 22 April 2021.

prescribed year means a financial year starting on 1 July of 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 or 2016.

prescribed year means a calendar year starting on 1 January of 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 or 2017.

  1. [36]
    The units issued under the schedule took effect on 1 September 2021.[15]
  2. [37]
    Section 5 of schedule 2C to the Fisheries (General) Regulation sets out the process for deciding the number of C1-ITQ units to be issued to an eligible person mirroring section 5 of schedule 2B in relation to ENL-ITQ units. It provides:

The chief executive must decide the number of C1-ITQ units to be issued to an eligible person as follows:

  1. the chief executive must decide, under section 6, the eligible person’s eligible reported catch for the units;
  1. the chief executive must give the eligible person an opportunity to apply for an amendment or substitution of the chief executive’s decision under section 6, as provided under sections 7 to 9;
  1. the chief executive must work out the total reported catch for the units under section 10;
  1. the chief executive must apply the formula and process in section 11 to decide the number of C1-ITQ units to be issued to the eligible person.
  1. [38]
    Section 6 of schedule 2C to the Regulation provides for deciding an eligible person’s reported catch for C1-ITQ units for a prescribed year.  It is the amount of prescribed crab:
  1. taken in the prescribed crab region in the year under the eligible licence held by the person; and
  1. reported to the chief executive under an information requirement before 31 December 2017.
  1. [39]
    The maximum amount of mud crabs that may constitute the person’s reported catch for C1-ITQ units for a prescribed year is:
  1. if the person held an eligible licence on which 2 or more ‘C1’ fishery symbols were written for any part of the year, and holds an eligible licence on which 2 or more ‘C1’ fishery symbols are written on 22 April 2021 - 12t; or
  1. otherwise - 6t.[16]
  1. [40]
    Subsection (3) of section 6 is couched in mandatory terms.  It provides the chief executive must decide an eligible person’s eligible reported catch for C1-ITQ units by adding up the person’s reported catch for the units for the six prescribed years with the highest reported catch for the units.
  2. [41]
    After deciding an eligible person’s eligible reported catch for C1-ITQ units under section 6 of schedule 2C, the chief executive must give the person a written notice.
  3. [42]
    The eligible person may apply to the chief executive to amend the chief executive’s decision under section 6(3) of schedule 2C if the chief executive has made an error in the details mentioned in section 7(1)(a) of the schedule, the details of the person’s reported catch for the units for each prescribed year.[17]
  4. [43]
    The person may apply to the chief executive to substitute the chief executive’s decision if:
  1. prescribed crab was not taken in the prescribed crab management region under the eligible licence in 3, 4, 5 or 6 prescribed years (each a nil history year); and
  1. either of the following applies for each nil history year (each a substitution reason for the nil history year):
  1. the eligible person did not take prescribed crab in the prescribed crab management region because of a natural disaster or a biosecurity event under the Biosecurity Act;
  1. the eligible person did not take fish in any commercial fishery because of the person’s illness or injury.[18]
  1. [44]
    Mr Hopkins, it is to be recalled, applied to the Department for:
  1. substitution of his C1-ITQ eligible reported catch of east coast mud crabs and blue swimmer crabs for boat mark FXHD based on him not taking prescribed crab due to natural disaster;
  2. substitution of his C1-ITQ eligible reported catch of east coast mud crabs and blue swimmer crabs for boat marks FM9, FQAB, FVEB, FWKK, FXLN and FYCF based on him not taking prescribed crab due to illness or injury; and
  3. amendment of his C1-ITQ eligible reported catch of east coast mud crabs and blue swimmer crabs for boat mark FXLN based on evidence an error was made in deciding his eligible reported catch.
  1. [45]
    If application is made by the eligible person under section 8(1) or 9(1) of schedule 2C, the chief executive must:
  1. amend or substitute the chief executive’s decision under section 6(2) of schedule 2C; or
  1. decide not to amend or substitute the chief executive’s decision under section 6(2) of schedule 2C.[19]
  1. [46]
    The chief executive must give the eligible person an information notice for the chief executive’s decision under sections 8(3) or 9(3) of schedule 2C, as the case may be.[20]
  2. [47]
    The formula for deciding the number of the C1-ITQ units to be issued to an eligible person is the number worked out using the formula in section 11(1).  The formula is:

C1-ITQ = EC x N

TC

where:

C1-ITQ means the number of C1-ITQ units to be issued to the eligible person.

EC means the eligible person’s eligible reported catch for the C1-ITQ units worked out under section 6 and, if applicable, as amended under section 8 or substituted under section 9.

N means:

  1. for BC1-ITQ units - 6,750; or
  1. for EC1-ITQ units - 29,600; or
  1. or GC1-ITQ units - 2,440.

TC means the total reported catch for the C1-ITQ units worked out under section 10.

  1. [48]
    Rounding is provided for in section 11(2).

Internal and external review

  1. [49]
    Review of an original decision is provided for in part 10 of the Fisheries Act.  Division 1 of part 10 contains definitions for the part.  Relevantly, affected person means:
  1. for an original decision mentioned in the definition original decision, paragraph (a) - a person who must be given an information notice under the Act for the decision; or
  1. for an original decision mentioned in the definition original decision, paragraph (b) - the person of whom the requirement is made; or
  1. for an internal review decision - the person who applied for the internal review.
  1. [50]
    Original decision means:
  1. a decision for which an information notice must be given under the Act; or
  1. a requirement made by the chief executive under section 118(1) (information requirement).
  1. [51]
    Information notice is defined in the dictionary in schedule 1 to the Fisheries Act.  For a decision, it means a written notice stating the following information:
  1. the decision;
  1. the reasons for the decision;
  1. that the person to whom the notice is given may ask for a review of the decision under the Act;
  1. how, and the period within which, the review may be started.
  1. [52]
    An affected person for an original decision may apply to the Tribunal for review of the decision only if a decision on an application for internal review of the decision has been made, or taken to what have been made, under division 2.[21]
  2. [53]
    An affected person for an original decision may apply to the chief executive for a review of the decision under division 2.[22]  The requirements for an internal review are set out in section 191 of the Fisheries Act.
  3. [54]
    An external review is provided for in division 3 of part 10 of the Act. A person who has been given a QCAT information notice[23] for an internal review decision may apply to the Tribunal, as provided under the QCAT Act, for a review of the decision.[24]
  4. [55]
    The Tribunal’s review jurisdiction is the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by section 192(2) of the Fisheries Act.[25] In exercising its review jurisdiction, the Tribunal:
  1. must decide the review in accordance with the QCAT Act and the Fisheries Act; and
  1. may perform the functions conferred on the Tribunal by the QCAT Act or the Fisheries Act; and
  1. has all the functions of the decision-maker for the reviewable decision being reviewed.[26]
  1. [56]
    The purpose of the review of a reviewable decision is to produce the correct and preferable decision.[27] The Tribunal must hear and decide a review of a reviewable decision by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.[28]

Hearing

Parties’ materials

  1. [57]
    The parties, at the outset of the hearing, identified the following material as that relied on:

Mr Hopkins

  1. application to review filed 8 September 2021;
  2. statement by Mr Hopkins filed 23 November 2021;
  3. statement by Mr Hopkins filed 30 November 2021; and
  4. submission by Mr Hopkins filed  5 September 2024, to which is annexed copies of the earlier statements.

Department

  1. statement by reasons filed 3 November 2021;
  2. affidavit of Dr J P Kung filed 11 September 2024 for ENL-ITQ units;
  3. affidavit of Dr J P Kung filed 11 September 2024 for C1-ITQ units; and
  4. submission filed 17 October 2024.

Oral evidence

  1. [58]
    Ms McAuliffe did not cross-examine Mr Hopkins. Mr Hopkins did not call any witnesses.
  2. [59]
    Mr Hopkins did not cross-examined Dr Kung.

Closing submissions

  1. [60]
    Mr Hopkins did not want to add to what is said by him in his written submissions.
  2. [61]
    Ms McAuliffe, in closing, drew attention to the information requirements in section 118 of the Fisheries Act. Mr Hopkins, Ms McAuliffe submitted, in relation to his application for substitution of his ENL-ITQ eligible reported catch of grey mackerel and school mackerel for boat mark FXLN, has not shown prescribed ENL-ITQ fish was not taken in the prescribed ENL management region under the eligible licence in a nil history year and either of the following applied for each nil history year:
  1. he did not take prescribed ENL-ITQ fish in the prescribed ENL management region because of a natural disaster; or
  1. he did not take fish in any commercial fishery because of illness or injury.
  1. [62]
    Further, in relation to his application to amend his ENL-ITQ eligible reported catch of grey mackerel and school mackerel for boat mark FXLN, Ms McAuliffe submitted, Mr Hopkins has not shown the chief executive made an error in the details mentioned in section 7(1)(a) of schedule 2B.
  2. [63]
    Again, in relation to the application for substitution of his C1-ITQ eligible reported catch of east coast mud crabs and blue swimmer crabs for boat mark FXHD and eligible reported catch of east coast mud crabs and blue swimmer crabs for boat marks FM9, FQAB, FVEB, FWKK, FXLN and FYCF, Mr Hopkins, Ms McAuliffe submitted, has not shown prescribed ENL-ITQ fish was not taken in the prescribed ENL management region under the eligible licence in a nil history year and either of the following applied for each nil history year:
  1. he did not take prescribed ENL-ITQ fish in the prescribed ENL management region because of a natural disaster; or
  2. he did not take fish in any commercial fishery because of illness or injury.
  1. [64]
    In relation to the application for amendment of his C1-ITQ eligible reported catch of east coast mud crabs and blue swimmer crabs for boat mark FXLN, Ms McAuliffe submitted Mr Hopkins has not shown the chief executive made an error in the details mentioned in section 7(1)(a) of schedule 2C, the details of Mr Hopkin’s reported catch for the units for each prescribed year.

Consideration

Mr Hopkins’ written submissions

  1. [65]
    Mr Hopkins, in his written submissions, and the earlier statements of evidence filed with the submissions, focuses on what he describes as ‘cronyism’ in Queensland Fisheries, ‘corrupt dealings’ and ‘corrupt rules’. He asserts the Department ‘… did not take into account cyclones, floods, whitespot, or any natural event that reduces fishing.’ He further asserts theft of crab and pots is a ‘huge problem’.
  2. [66]
    He has had cancer twice, Mr Hopkins states, and three of his lessees have had cancer affecting catches. The following cyclones and subsequence floods, Mr Hopkins states, have affected crabbing in Queensland:
    1. Cyclone Tasha, in December 2010 – January 2011;
    2. Cyclone Zeila, in January 2011 – February 2011;
    3. Cyclone Anthony, in January 2011 – February 2011;
    4. Cyclone Yasi, in January 2011 – February 2011;
    5. Cyclones Fina and Jasmine, in December 2011 and February 2012;
    6. Cyclone Oswald, in January 2013 – February 2013;
    7. Cyclones Dylan and Fletcher, in January 2014 – March 2014;
    8. Cyclone Ita, in April 2014 – May 2014;
    9. Cyclones Marcia and Nathan, in February 2015 – April 2015;
    10. Cyclone Raquel, in June – July 2015;
    11. Cyclone Tatiana, in February – March 2016; and
    12. Cyclone Debbie, in April 2017.
  3. [67]
    Mr Hopkins did not adduce evidence to the original decision-maker, the internal review decision-maker or the Tribunal showing the chief executive made an error with the details mentioned in section 7(1) of schedule 2B or schedule 2C.
  4. [68]
    He asserts natural disasters and illness affected the ENL-ITQ fish and prescribed crab taken by him. However, the Tribunal is without evidence satisfying the requirements of sections 9(1) and(2)(b) of schedule 2B or schedule 2C.

Department’s written submissions

  1. [69]
    The Department provides an overview of its written submissions. It reads:
  1. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (“the Respondent”) submits that the proceeding should be dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that it is misconceived according to law, and thus without merit.
  1. Section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (“the QCAT Act”) provides that the Tribunal may order the proceeding, or part, be dismissed or struck out if the Tribunal considers that 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.
  1. The Tribunal may act to dismiss or strike out a proceeding on the application of a party to the proceeding or on the Tribunal's own initiative.
  1. In Ballarto Pastoral Ply Ltd v Department of Primary Industries [2006] VCAT 478 “misconceived” was held to mean “obviously untenable or groundless”.
  1. The threshold to dismiss an application pursuant to section 47 of the QCAT Act is a high one. In General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner of Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 129, Barwick CJ stated as follows:

“It is sufficient for me to say that these cases uniformly adhere to the view that the plaintiff ought not to be denied access to the customary tribunal which deals with actions of the kind he brings, unless his lack of a cause of action - if that be the ground on which the court is invited, as in this case, to exercise Its powers of summary dismissal - is clearly demonstrated. The test to be applied has been variously expressed; “so obviously untenable that it cannot possibly succeed”; “manifestly groundless"; "so manifestly faulty that it does not admit of argument”; “discloses a case which the Court is satisfied cannot succeed”; “unclear no possibility can there be a good cause of action”; “ be manifest that to allow them” (the pleadings) “to stand would involve useless expense”.

As I have said, some of these expressions occur in cases in which the inherent jurisdiction was invoked and others in cases founded on statutory rules of court but although the material available to the court in either type of case may be different the need for exceptional caution in exercising the power whether it be inherent or under statutory rules is the same.”

  1. The Respondent submits that the application is misconceived, and thus meets the high threshold for dismissal, on the basis that the outcomes being sought by Craig Danson Hopkins (“the Applicant”) are not permissible because they would require the decision maker to ignore what is required by the relevant legislation.
  1. [70]
    The submissions then outline the legislative framework and background facts and, under the heading ‘C1-ITQ Units (Crab)’, address each of the relevant licences. Relevantly, it is submitted:
  1. licence number 18886 (FM9). Mr Hopkins did not apply for amendment of his eligible reported catch of C1 prescribed crab. He applied for substitution of his eligible reported catch of C1 prescribed crab for the 2011 - 2012 to 2016 - 2017 financial years but was unsuccessful because he did not meet the eligibility requirements for substitution based on the east coast mud crabs taken under the licence in each of the subject years;
  2. licence number 5783 (FQAB). Mr Hopkins did not apply for amendment of his eligible reported catch of C1 prescribed crab. He applied for substitution of his eligible reported catch of C1 prescribed crab for all prescribed years but was unsuccessful because he did not meet the eligibility requirements for substitution based on the east coast mud crabs taken under the licence in each of the subject years;
  3. licence number 17740 (FVEB). Mr Hopkins did not apply for amendment of his eligible reported catch of C1 prescribed crab. He applied for substitution of his eligible reported catch of C1 prescribed crab for all prescribed financial years but was unsuccessful because he did not meet the eligibility requirements for substitution based on the east coast mud crab and blue swimmer crab taken under the licence in each of the subject years;
  4. licence number 19702 (FWKK). Mr Hopkins did not apply for amendment of his eligible reported catch of C1 prescribed crab. He applied for substitution of his eligible reported catch of C1 prescribed crab but was unsuccessful because he did not meet the eligibility requirements for substitution based on the east coast mud crab taken under the licence in each of the subject years;
  5. Licence number 19684 (FXHDJ. Mr Hopkins did not apply for amendment of his eligible reported catch of C1 prescribed crab. He applied for substitution of his eligible reported catch of C1 prescribed crab for the 2014 - 2015 to 2016 - 2017 financial years but was unsuccessful because he did not meet the eligibility requirements for substitution based on the east coast mud crabs taken under the licence in each of the subject years;
  6. Licence number 15620 (FXLN). Mr Hopkins applied for substitution of his eligible reported catch of prescribed crab for the 2010 - 2011 to 2011 - 2012 financial years but was unsuccessful because he did not meet the eligibility requirements for substitution based on the east coast mud crabs and blue swimmer crab taken under the licence in each of the prescribed years;
  7. Licence number 20071 (FYCF). Mr Hopkins did not apply for amendment of his eligible reported catch of C1 prescribed crab. He applied for substitution of his eligible reported catch of C1 prescribed crab for the 2013 - 014 to 2016 - 2017 financial years but was unsuccessful because he did not meet the eligibility requirements for substitution based on the east coast mud crabs taken under the licence in each of the subject years.
  1. [71]
    Under the heading ‘ENL-ITQ (East Coast Fin Fish)’, it is relevantly submitted:
  1. Licence number 5783 (Boat Mark FQAB). Mr Hopkins did not apply for amendment of his eligible reported catch of ENL prescribed species or substitution of his eligible reported catch of ENL prescribed species. He did not apply for internal review of the original decision within the prescribed time.
  2. Licence number 15620 (Boat Mark FXLN). Mr Hopkins applied to have his eligible reported catch of prescribed species grey mackerel and school mackerel amended for each of the prescribed years but was unsuccessful because the material he provided did not show the chief executive had made an error in the details of the reported catch for the prescribed years.

Mr Hopkins claimed he discarded approximately 2,000 kilograms of grey mackerel between 2010 and 2018 and asserted this catch should be included as part of his eligible reported catch of the species. However, the discarded catch was not reported in logbooks prior to 1 July 2018 and thus cannot be included in the eligible reported catch.

Additionally, Mr Hopkins submitted copies of new logbook sheets in support of the asserted error in the records of the catch of ENL fish species. However, the new logbook sheets did not match the logbook sheets originally submitted. Indeed, in all but one instance the new logbook sheets reported catches lower than those reported in the logbook sheets originally submitted.

  1. [72]
    The Department submits the only decisions amenable to external review by the Tribunal are the decisions under sections 8(3) and 9(3) of schedule 2B to the Fisheries (General) Regulation and sections 8(3) and 9(3) of schedule 2C. The decisions under section 5 of schedule 2B worked out using the formula in section 11 and section 5 of schedule 2C worked out using the formula in section 11, the Department further submits, are not amenable to external review.
  2. [73]
    The relevant internal decisions are:

C1-ITQ units

Date

Licence no. (boat mark)

Application

Ground

Decision

Reason

16.05.2021

18886 (FM9)

5783 (FQAB)

17740 (FVEB)

19702 (FWKK)

19684 (FXHD)

15620 (FXLN)

20071 (FYCF)

Substitution of eligible reported catch of east coast mud crab and blue swimmer crab

Illness or injury

Refused

Did not meet the eligibility requirements for substitution

21.05.2021

15620 (FXLN)

Amendment of eligible reported catch of east coast mud crab and blue swimmer crab

Error

Refused

No error in details of reported catch for units for each prescribed year

ENL-ITQ units

Date

Licence no. (boat mark)

Application

Ground

Decision

Reason

30.04.2021

15620 (FXLN)

Substitution of eligible reported catch of grey mackerel and school mackerel

Natural disaster

Refused

Did not meet the eligibility requirements for substitution

16.05.2021

15620 (FXLN)

Amendment of eligible reported catch of grey mackerel and school mackerel

Error

Refused

No error in details of reported catch for units for each prescribed year

  1. [74]
    The Department refers to the decision of the Tribunal in Lukaszewicz v Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (Qld)[29]. There, the applicant sought external review of the number of C1-ITQ units issued to him under section 11 of schedule 2C to the Fisheries (General) Regulation. The decision is not a reviewable decision whereas decisions under sections 8(3) and 9(3) of schedule 2B and sections 8(3) and 9(3) of schedule 2C are reviewable decisions.

Decisions amenable to internal and external review

  1. [75]
    Mr Hopkins, in his application to review, identifies the decisions being reviewed as the decisions made ‘30/7/21’. He annexes to the application the internal review decision dated 25 August 2021, letters from the Department to Mr Hopkins date 30 July 2021 informing him of the number of ENL-ITQ units the chief executive has decided to issue to him under section 5 of schedule 2B and the number of C1-ITQ units the chief executive has decided to issue to him under section 5 of schedule 2C and the following original decisions dated 30 July 2021:

ELN-ITQ units

Licence no. (boat mark)

Application

15620 (FXLN)

Substitution of eligible reported catch of grey mackerel and school mackerel

15620 (FXLN)

Amendment of eligible reported catch of grey mackerel and school mackerel

C1-ITQ units

Licence no. (boat mark)

Application

18886 (FM9)

5783 (FQAB)

17740 (FVEB)

19702 (FWKK)

19684 (FXHD)

15620 (FXLN)

20071 (FYCF)

Substitution of eligible reported catch of east coast mud crab and blue swimmer crab

15620 (FXLN)

Amendment of eligible reported catch of east coast mud crab and blue swimmer crab

  1. [76]
    The chief executive’s decisions on the number of ENL-ITQ units to be issue to Mr Hopkins under section 5 of schedule 2B worked out using the formula in section 11 and the number of C1-ITQ units to be issue to him under section 5 of schedule 2C worked out using the formula in section 11 are not amenable to internal review by the chief executive by reason of there being no requirement for the chief executive to give to Mr Hopkins an information notice for the chief executive’s decisions, a requirement for internal review, and is not amenable to external review by the Tribunal by reason of there being no right to internal review.[30]
  2. [77]
    Those decisions may be put to one side.
  3. [78]
    The chief executive’s decisions on the applications by Mr Hopkins to amend the chief executive’s decision on his reported catch for ENL-ITQ units under section 8(1) of schedule 2B and to substitute the chief executive’s decision under sections 9(1) and the applications by Mr Hopkins to amend the chief executive’s decision on his reported catch for C1-ITQ units under section 8(1) of schedule 2C and to substitute the chief executive’s decision under section 9(1) remain for decision by the Tribunal they being decisions in respect of which the chief executive is required to give an information notice and hence are amenable to internal review by the chief executive and external review by the Tribunal.

Application to amend and substitute eligible reported catch

  1. [79]
    An eligible person, a person who held an eligible licence on 22 April 2021, may only apply to the chief executive under section 8(1) of schedules 2B and 2C to amend the Department’s decision on the eligible person’s eligible reported catch for ENL-ITQ units and C1-ITQ units under section 6(3) if the Department has made an error in the details of the persons reported catch for ENL-ITQ units and C1 – ITQ units for each of the seven years, the financial years 2010 – 2011 to 2016 – 2017 (both inclusive).
  2. [80]
    An eligible person may apply to the Department under section 9(1) of schedules 2B and 2C to substitute the Department’s decision under section 6(3) of schedules 2B and 2C in the circumstances described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 9(1) and subject to complying with section 9(2). The circumstances are:
    1. prescribed ENL-ITQ fish or crab (as the case may be) was not taken in the prescribed ENL management region or crab management region (as the case may be) under the eligible licence in 3, 4, 5 or 6 prescribed years (each a nil history year); and
    2. either of the following applies for each nil history year (each a substitution reason for the nil history year):
  1. the eligible person did not take ENL-ITQ fish or crab (as the case may be) in the prescribed ENL management region or crab management region (as the case may be) because of a natural disaster or a biosecurity event under the Biosecurity Act 2014 (Qld);
  1. the eligible person did not take fish in any commercial fishery because of the person’s illness or injury.
  1. [81]
    The Department’s findings of fact and the reasons for the internal review decisions for each of the relevant licences are set out in the affidavits of Dr Kung for ENL-ITQ units and C1-ITQ units. The findings are summarised in the table following:

ENL-ITQ units

Licence no. (boat mark)

Application

Findings

Paragraphs of Dr Kung’s affidavit

15620 (FXLN)

Substitution of eligible reported catch of grey mackerel and school mackerel

Mr Hopkins was ineligible to apply or receive a substituted eligible reported catch of grey mackerel or school mackerel in 2013 because he did not provide sufficient evidence to support his application and his reported catch history did not meet the minimum requirements for number of years with nil catch.

44 - 74

15620 (FXLN)

Amendment of eligible reported catch of grey mackerel and school mackerel

The material provided by Mr Hopkins did not show the chief executive had made an error in the details of Mr Hopkins’ reported catch for the units for each prescribed year.

44 - 74

C1-ITQ units

Licence no. (boat mark)

Application

Findings

Paragraphs of Dr Kung’s affidavit

18886 (FM9)

Substitution of eligible reported catch of east coast mud crab and blue swimmer crab

  1. In relation to east coast mud crab, the licence did not have any years with nil catch during the prescribed period.
  2. In relation to blue swimmer crab, the licence was used for commercial fishing during the years where no blue swimmer crab were caught.
  3. In relation to Gulf of Carpentaria mud crab, there was no recorded catch of the species during the prescribed period and thus no eligible reported catch.

23 - 43

5783 (FQAB)

Substitution of eligible reported catch of east coast mud crab and blue swimmer crab

  1. In relation to east coast mud crab, the licence did not have any years with nil catch during the prescribed period.
  2. In relation to blue swimmer crab, the licence only recorded one year with nil catch during the relevant time period.
  1. In relation to Gulf of Carpentaria mud crab, there was no recorded catch of this species during the prescribed period and thus no eligible reported catch.

58 - 78

17740 (FVEB)

Substitution of eligible reported catch of east coast mud crab and blue swimmer crab

  1. In relation to east coast mud crab, the licence did not have any years with nil catch during the prescribed period.
  2. In relation to blue swimmer crab, the licence only recorded one year with nil catch during the relevant time period.
  3. In relation to Gulf of Carpentaria mud crab, there was no recorded catch of the species during the prescribed period and thus no eligible reported catch.

93 - 113

19702 (FWKK)

Substitution of eligible reported catch of east coast mud crab and blue swimmer crab

  1. In relation to east coast mud crab, the licence did not have any years with nil catch during the prescribed period.
  2. In relation to blue swimmer crab and Gulf of Carpentaria mud crab, there was no recorded catch of these species during the relevant time period and thus no eligible reported catch

128 - 147

19684 (FXHD)

Substitution of eligible reported catch of east coast mud crab and blue swimmer crab

  1. In relation to east coast mud crab, the licence did not have any years with nil catch during the prescribed period.
  2. In relation to blue swimmer crab and Gulf of Carpentaria mud crab, there was no recorded catch of these species during the relevant time period and thus no eligible reported catch

162 - 181

15620 (FXLN)

Substitution of eligible reported catch of east coast mud crab and blue swimmer crab

  1. In relation to east coast mud crab, the licence only recorded 2 years with nil catch duringth the relevant time period.
  2. In relation to blue swimmer crab, the licence only recorded 2 years nil catch during the relevant time period.
  3. In relation to the Gulf of Carpentaria mud crab, there was no recorded catch of these species during the relevant time period and thus no eligible reported catch.

197 - 208

20071 (FYCF)

Substitution of eligible reported catch of east coast mud crab and blue swimmer crab

  1. In relation to east coast mud crab, the licence did not have any years with nil catch within the relevant financial years (2013-2014 - 2016-2017).
  2. In relation to blue swimmer crab, there was no recorded catch of this species during the prescribed period and thus no eligible reported catch.
  3. In relation to the Gulf of Carpentaria mud crab, there was no recorded catch of the species during the relevant time period and thus no eligible reported catch.

232 - 251

15620 (FXLN)

Amendment of eligible reported catch of east coast mud crab and blue swimmer crab

The material provided by Mr Hopkins did not show the chief executive had made an error in the details Mr Hopkins reported catch for the units for each prescribed year.

209 - 221

  1. [82]
    The workings for the internal review decisions set out in Dr Kung’s affidavits are based on the material before the original decision-maker and the internal review decision-maker. The workings are comprehensive and presented in a way that is clear and concise. Mr Hopkins did not adduce evidence contradicting the workings or the findings of fact or reasons for the internal review decisions deposed to by Dr Kung.
  2. [83]
    The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Dr Kung. It is satisfied, to the requisite standard, the internal review decisions in relation to Mr Hopkins’ applications to amend and substitute the chief executive’s decisions on Mr Hopkins’ eligible reported catch for ENL-ITQ units and to amend and substitute his eligible reported catch for C1-ITQ units are correct and should be confirmed.

Summary

  1. [84]
    The chief executive’s decisions on the number of ENL-ITQ units to be issue to Mr Hopkins under section 5 of schedule 2B worked out using the formula in section 11 and the number of C1-ITQ units to be issue to him under section 5 of schedule 2C worked out using the formula in section 11 are not amenable to internal review by the chief executive by reason of there being no requirement for the chief executive to give to Mr Hopkins an information notice for the chief executive’s decisions, a requirement for internal review, and is not amenable to external review by the Tribunal by reason of there being no right to internal review. The application to review, in so far as it concerns those decisions, is dismissed.
  2. [85]
    The internal review decisions confirming the original decisions on Mr Hopkins’ applications to amend and substitute the chief executive’s decisions on Mr Hopkins’ eligible reported catch for ENL-ITQ units and to amend and substitute his eligible reported catch for C1-ITQ units are confirmed.

Decision

  1. [86]
    The decision of the Tribunal is as follows:
  1. The application to the Tribunal to review the chief executive’s decisions on the number of ENL-ITQ units to be issue to Mr Hopkins under section 5 of schedule 2B to the Fisheries (General) Regulation worked out using the formula in section 11 and the number of C1-ITQ units to be issue to him under section 5 of schedule 2C to the Regulation worked out using the formula in section 11 is dismissed.
  1. The internal review decisions of the chief executive made 25 August 2021 on Mr Hopkins applications made 30 April 2021 and 16 and 21 May 202:
  1. to amend and substitute the chief executive’s decision on Mr Hopkins’ eligible reported catch for ENL-ITQ units under sections 8(1) and 9(1) of schedule 2B to the Regulation respectively; and
  2. to amend and substitute the chief executive’s decision on Mr Hopkins’ eligible reported catch for C1-ITQ units under sections 8(1) and 9(1) of schedule 2C,

are confirmed.

Footnotes

[1] Fisheries Act, sch 11.

[2] Fisheries Act, sch 11.

[3] Page 4 of the internal review decision.

[4] See Hopkins v Department of Agriculture and Fisheries [2023] QCAT 451.

[5] Fisheries Act, s 3(2).

[6] Fisheries Act, s 3A(1).

[7] Fisheries Act, s 3A(2).

[8] Fisheries (General) Regulation, sch 2B, s 3.

[9] Fisheries (General) Regulation, sch 2B, s 4.

[10] Fisheries Act, sch 2B, s 9(1).

[11] Fisheries Act, sch 2B, ss 8(3) and 9(3).

[12] Fisheries (General) Regulation, sch 2B, ss 8(4) and 9(6).

[13] Fisheries (General) Regulation, sch 2B, s 11(2).

[14] Fisheries (General) Regulation, sch 2C, s 3.

[15] Fisheries (General) Regulation, sch 2C, s 4.

[16] Fisheries (General) Regulation, sch 2C, s 6(2).

[17] Fisheries (General) Regulation, sch 2C, s 8(1).

[18] Fisheries (General) Regulation, sch 2C, s 9(1).

[19] Fisheries (General) Regulation, sch 2C, ss 8(3) and 9(3).

[20] Fisheries (General) Regulation, sch 2C, ss 8(4) and 9(6).

[21] Fisheries Act, s 188.

[22] Fisheries Act, s 189.

[23] For an internal review decision, defined in section 187 of the Fisheries Act as a notice complying with section 157(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

[24] 192(1) and (2) of the Fisheries Act, ss 192(1) and (2).

[25] QCAT Act, s 17(1).

[26] QCAT Act, s 19.

[27] QCAT Act, s 20(1).

[28] QCAT Act, s 20(2).

[29] [2023] QCAT 48.

[30] See Fisheries Act, ss 188 (review process must start with internal review), 189(1) (who may apply for internal review), 187 (the definitions of affected person and original decision), 192 (applying for external review).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Hopkins v Department of Agriculture and Fisheries

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Hopkins v Department of Agriculture and Fisheries

  • MNC:

    [2025] QCAT 176

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Scott-Mackenzie

  • Date:

    14 Apr 2025

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Bellarto Pastoral Pty Ltd v Department of Primary Industries [2006] VCAT 478
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2006] VCAT 478
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1964) 112 CLR 125
Hopkins v Department of Agriculture and Fisheries [2023] QCAT 451
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QCAT 451
Cite 2 - [2023] QCAT 451
Lukaszewicz v Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (Qld) [2023] QCAT 48
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QCAT 48
Cite 2 - [2023] QCAT 48

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.