DN[2025] QCAT 298

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. [1]
   EF applies for a reopening of proceedings before the Tribunal heard and determined under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) (‘GA Act’) on 13 May 2025.^[1]
2. [2]
   Under s 138 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) a party to a proceeding may apply to the Tribunal for the proceeding to be reopened if the party considers that a reopening ground exists. The Tribunal may grant the application where a reopening ground exists, and the ground could be ‘effectively and conveniently dealt with by reopening the proceeding’.^[2]
3. [3]
   A ‘reopening ground’ for a party to a proceeding means^[3] —

   1. the party did not appear at the hearing of the proceeding and had a reasonable excuse for not attending the hearing; or
   2. the party would suffer a substantial injustice if the proceeding was not reopened because significant new evidence has arisen and that evidence was not reasonably available when the proceeding was first heard and determined.
4. [4]
   In the application for reopening, EF states:

The Member did not have my 146 page comments on this application. I posted it to the address supplied on letter 2 April 2025 from [the Tribunal Case Manager]. It was sent by express post and had to be signed for when received. It was delivered on [23 April 2025] at 6:41am to a post office box. I rang to check and it had been received. A lot of information was not addressed. There were a lot of public holidays.^[4]

5. [5]
   The proceeding EF seeks to reopen relates to matters concerning EF’s mother, DN and her enduring power of attorney.
6. [6]
   On 13 May 2025 the Tribunal, by Order, gave leave to EF to resign as attorney for DN and changed DN’s enduring power of attorney by replacing EF with TD, DN’s daughter.
7. [7]
   The Tribunal’s record of the proceeding on 13 May 2025 shows that EF, together with TD, DN and other relevant persons, attended the hearing. Further, the Tribunal’s file concerning DN contains a number of documents including a document filed by EF on 24 April 2025. This document is the same as EF’s document identified as the ‘146 page comments’ in the application for reopening.
8. [8]
   The Tribunal’s record of proceeding completed by the Tribunal on 13 May 2025 contains a list of documents considered by the Tribunal as being credible, relevant and significant to an issue in the proceeding in accordance with s 103 of the GA Act. The relevant list of documents does not identify EF’s ‘146 page’ document filed on 24 April 2025. Further, from listening to the recording of the proceeding on 13 May 2025, EF refers the Tribunal to the ‘146 page’ document and the information contained in it. The Member can be heard asking when this document was received. It is open for this Tribunal to draw the reasonable inference that the Tribunal did not have before it EF’s ‘146 page’ document at the time it heard and determined the applications concerning DN on 13 May 2025.

The application for reopening

9. [9]
   EF relies on the second reopening ground because EF attended the proceeding at first instance and has clearly stated in the relevant application that the Tribunal did not consider the ‘146 page’ document.
10. [10]
    EF has filed the application for reopening within the time prescribed and as discussed above the relevant document EF refers to was not before the Tribunal when the proceeding was heard and determined on 13 May 2025.^[5]  It is open for this Tribunal to find that EF’s ‘146 page’ document was material that EF wanted the Tribunal to consider in the hearing about matters concerning DN. In the application for reopening, EF states:

The Member did not have my rebuttal comments and proof of information … A lot of information was not covered.

11. [11]
    I am satisfied the reopening ground can effectively be dealt with by reopening the proceeding. The reopening means a fresh hearing will be conducted. EF will be given a reasonable opportunity to present her case and this includes the opportunity to present material, such as the ‘146 page’ document, relevant to the proceeding.^[6]
12. [12]
    I am satisfied it is necessary to exercise my discretion to allow the application for reopening. It is unfortunate that the document filed by EF was not considered by the Tribunal in the proceeding on 13 May 2025. The Tribunal will, however, be well placed to consider this material in the fresh hearing concerning the applications about DN.
13. [13]
    The application for reopening is granted and I order accordingly.

Orders

1. 1.
   The application for reopening of proceedings GAA12050-24 and GAA2154-25 is granted.