Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
- Unreported Judgment
George v MMG Ltd QCATA 14
George v MMG Ltd  QCATA 14
Application and Appeals
20 January 2016
22 January 2016
THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – where the applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision of a Magistrate to issue a termination order and warrant of possession in respect of the residential dwelling occupied by the applicant – where the applicant claimed that the original application was part of a “broader dispute” between the GADC and the respondent – whether the application for leave to appeal should be struck out.
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), ss 32, 139
Blair v Harbrew Pty Ltd  QCATA 19
Maffey v Mueller (unreported, Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeal Tribunal, APL077-15, 22 January 2016, Carmody J)
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This application for miscellaneous matters was determined on the papers under s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“QCAT Act”).
REASONS FOR DECISION
- This is an application for miscellaneous matters, filed by the respondent on 13 October 2015, to strike out the application for leave to appeal, filed by the applicant on 12 August 2015, against a decision of Magistrate Osborne, on 10 August 2015, to issue a termination order and warrant of possession.
- The applicant states the following in her application for leave to appeal:
Due to mix up in date I turned up at the Normanton Court house today Tuesday 10/08/2015, I was sick on Monday with flu/sore throat and could not speak (can be clarified by Lawyer as I spoke to him about this hearing).
I reside at 40 Riverview Drive BUT we use this address for the Gulf Aboriginal Development Company (GADC) office.
GADC is in a contractual agreement with MMG Limited as part of an Agreement with the Century Mines Project known as the Gulf Communities Agreement (GCA).
I am appealing as this is only part of a bigger Dispute with MMG and we the GADC through our representatives took a proposal to Melbourne Head Office to discuss with MMG CEO Andrew Michelmore on our concerns and in that proposal this address was included.
- The applicant seeks the following orders:
I (as myself and representing GADC) is seeking the tribunal to allow us to have face to face meeting with MMG whether it is through the QCAT process or other, we the GADC is placing a DISPUTE NOTICE on MMG in the next few days drawn up by our Lawyer and Barrister, this will include proposal we took to Melbourne which includes this residence.
On behalf of myself and GADC we are seeking appeal on decision for MMG to take back possession of 40 Riverview Drive, that QCAT allow Appeal process and give myself and GADC the opportunity to either discuss with MG at QCAT process or with other DISPUTE NOTICE at face to face meeting with MMG, we are hoping our process will be by 31st August 2015.
- The applicant filed submissions on 9 December 2015 particularising, but not substantially amending or illuminating, the grounds of appeal raised in her original application for leave to appeal.
- The substance of the application for leave is as follows:
- the applicant failed to attend the original hearing in T3/15 on 10 August 2015 because the applicant was unwell, or had mistaken the date of the hearing; and
- the application in T3/15 is a component of a broader dispute between an organisation, referred to by the applicant as the Gulf Aboriginal Development Corporation (“GADC”), and the respondent.
- The first complaint was resolved by Deputy President Horneman-Wren DCJ by orders dated 14 August 2015, referring the application for leave to appeal to the Tribunal at Normanton to decide whether T3/15 should be reopened.
- The applicant was served with a Notice to Attend, and the rehearing took place on 21 September 2015. The applicant failed to appear, and the application to reopen was refused. The Appeal Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal to refuse an application to reopen an original decision.
- The applicant does not appear to claim that the original proceedings were procedurally unfair, or that she was otherwise deprived of natural justice, by reason of her non-attendance.
- If the applicant did intend to make such a claim, the Appeal Tribunal would observe that the applicant’s excuse for non-appearance is not one which would ordinarily warrant appellate intervention. Litigants are expected to act in their own best interests; this includes properly recording (or clarifying) dates of hearings, and contacting the Tribunal if unable to attend.
- This failure is exacerbated, and compounded, by the fact that the applicant was given an opportunity to make submissions to reopen the decision, but failed to enter an appearance at the reopening hearing.
- The second purported ground of appeal claims that the application forming the basis of T3/15 is part of a “broader dispute” between GADC and the respondent. The applicant has not adduced evidence establishing the existence or nature of the “broader dispute”, nor has she attempted to demonstrate its practical relationship with the disposition of T3/15. In any event, such a claim does not assert any legal, factual, or discretionary error.
- The vacuity of this purported ground of appeal is further demonstrated by the orders requested by the applicant. The applicant appears to request that the Appeal Tribunal order that the parties and GADC enter into a form of mediation or alternative dispute resolution. Although such an order may be within the jurisdiction of the Appeal Tribunal, it is not an order dispositive of the application for leave to appeal, and cannot have the effect of correcting any substantial injustice caused by error in the primary decision.
- The application for leave to appeal discloses no legally cognisable ground of appeal, or otherwise postulates no reasonably arguable case of error.
- The application for leave to appeal should be struck out.
- It is the decision of the Appeal Tribunal that:
- The application for leave to appeal in APL319-15 is struck out.
 The Appeal Tribunal observes that the applicant has not attempted to adduce affidavit or other medical evidence in the reopening or appeal proceedings of illness on 10 August 2015.
 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 139(5).
 Blair v Harbrew Pty Ltd  QCATA 19; Maffey v Mueller (unreported, Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeal Tribunal, APL077-15, 22 January 2016, Carmody J).
- Published Case Name:
Francine George v MMG Ltd
- Shortened Case Name:
George v MMG Ltd
 QCATA 14
22 Jan 2016