Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
- Unreported Judgment
Cooper v O'Connor QCATA 180
Cooper v O'Connor  QCATA 180
Peter Wayne Cooper
Neil Francis O'Connor
On the papers
Senior Member Stilgoe OAM
15 November 2016
APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – REAL PROPERTY – BOUNDARIES OF LAND AND FENCING – FENCES AND FENCING – NOTICE – where notice to contribute for fencing work – where fencing work not done – where applicant wanted order about fencing work – whether notice to contribute valid – whether notice to contribute in fact an agreement to fence – whether tribunal had jurisdiction – whether error of law – whether grounds for leave to appeal
APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PARTIES AND REPRESENTATION – where respondent property held in joint names – where tribunal joined deceased – whether error of law – whether grounds for leave to appeal
APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE OR TERRITORY COURTS – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – AMENDING VARYING AND SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – where applicant submitted tribunal had no jurisdiction to make orders – where applicant failed to engage in tribunal proceeding – where application for leave to appeal filed out of time – where applicant could not explain delay – whether orders should be set aside
APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE OR TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – DEPRIVING SUCCESSFUL PARTY OF COSTS – CONDUCT OF PARTY OR PROCEEDING – DELAY – DELAY IN EXERCISING RIGHTS – where applicant failed to engage in tribunal proceeding – where application for leave to appeal filed out of time – where applicant could not explain delay – whether tribunal should be entitled to costs of the appeal
Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) s 15
Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2001 (Qld) s 30(2), 32, 30(3), 31(2)(a), 31(2)(c), 31(3), 31(6), 35(c),
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 3(b), s 28(3)(b), s 48(1)(a), s 61, s 100, s 102, s 122, s 132(2), s 132(4), s 133, s 134, s 135, s 138, s 142(3)(a)(i)
Succession Act 1981 (Qld) s 66(1)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 899
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld) r 92
Amies v Lerve  QCATA 061
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Attorney-General v Kehoe  2 Qd R 350 at 356; Tully v McIntyre  2 Qd R 338
Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1
Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Pickering v McArthur  QCA 294
R T Company Proprietary Limited v Minister of State for the Interior (1957) 98 CLR 168
Redwerks Pty Ltd v ME & LN Rosemeyer Super Pty Ltd  QCATA 80
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
K N Wilson QC instructed by Australian Property Lawyers
B A Hall instructed by Hede Byrne & Hall
REASONS FOR DECISION
- In this dividing fence dispute, the tribunal file is beset by a litany of errors. Some errors are the fault of the tribunal. Neil O'Connor, the original applicant, contributed to the errors. And Peter Cooper, through his silence in a protracted dispute, is not without blame.
- The errors start with Mr O'Connor’s notice to contribute for fencing work dated 10 December 2014.
The notice to contribute for fencing work
- If an owners wants an adjoining owner to contribute to fencing work, the owner must give the adjoining owner a notice to contribute. The notice must be in the approved form and state, amongst other things, the estimated cost of the fencing work to be carried out including the cost of labour and materials. The notice must be accompanied by a copy of at least one written quotation stating the estimated cost of the fencing work to be carried out.
- Mr O'Connor’s notice was directed to Mr Cooper. At the time, however, Mr Cooper was not the sole owner of the adjoining property. In fact, he jointly owned the property with his mother, Ruby. Because the notice to contribute for fencing work was not directed to both owners of the property, it was, arguably, invalid.
- The notice did not have an estimated cost of the proposed work. Instead, Mr O'Connor nominated the ‘completed cost of my mutually agreed section’, valued at $5,070, and that Mr Cooper’s share would be ‘as agreed’. In my view, the notice does not, as required, state the estimated cost of the fencing work.
- There is no evidence Mr O'Connor attached a written quotation for the work.
- As these reasons also demonstrate, Mr O'Connor did not properly identify the line on which the fence was to be constructed. That is also an essential element of a valid notice to fence.
- Mr O'Connor’s notice to fence was not a valid notice.
The application to the tribunal
- An owner may apply to the tribunal for resolution of a dispute if the dispute arises about carrying out fencing work for which a notice to contribute has been given.
- If, within one month after the notice is given, the adjoining owners have not agreed about the proposed fencing work, either owner may apply to the tribunal for an order.
- However, the tribunal’s jurisdiction is only enlivened by a valid notice to fence. Because Mr O'Connor’s notice to contribute for fencing work was not valid, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the application.
The validity of the proceeding
- Mr O'Connor’s application should have been dismissed at this early stage. Instead, it went to a hearing on 23 February 2015. Mr Cooper did not attend the hearing. The tribunal adjourned the proceeding so that Mr O'Conner could file further material, identifying the location of the required fencing.
- The fact that the tribunal did not have a proper description of the location of the proposed fencing confirms my view that the notice to contribute for fencing work was invalid. A notice must contain a description of the land on which the fencing work is proposed to be carried out and, if the fencing work is to construct a dividing fence, the line on which it is proposed to construct the fence. The fact that the tribunal did not know where the fence was to be constructed leads, inevitably, to the conclusion that the notice was inadequate.
- Because of the tribunal’s many errors, and the fact that some important procedural questions have been raised by the application for leave to appeal, I will examine each of the tribunal’s orders.
The order of 4 March 2015
- On 16 February 2016, Mr O'Connor filed an application to amend the names of the respondents to Peter Cooper, Ruby Cooper and Ruby’s deceased husband, Norman Cooper.
- The basis of the application was, according to Mr O'Connor’s Form 40, that Somerset Council had provided correct details of the current ownership and both Ruby and Norman were deceased.
- Because the identity of the owners of the adjoining land is an important fact, Mr O'Connor should not have acted on the advice of the Council. He should have searched the title. He should have provided a copy of an historical title search. The tribunal should not have decided Mr O'Connor’s application without these documents.
- I now have a copy of an historical title search as at 18 March 2016. The owners are listed as Peter Cooper and Ruby Cooper as from December 2013. I also have a copy of a death certificate showing Ruby died on 1 January 2015. The respondents to the application should have been Peter Cooper and the executors of Ruby’s estate. I know who Norman’s executors were. I still do not know who Ruby’s executors were.
- On the death of a person, all causes of action subsisting against that person survive against the estate. The estates of Norman and Ruby, if not finalised, were the appropriate respondents. The tribunal erred in adding Norman and Ruby as respondents to Mr Cooper’s application.
The order of 31 March 2015
- Mr Cooper did not attend the hearing on 31 March 2015. The tribunal ordered that he build a dividing fence on an area identified by reference to an attached plan. The tribunal specified the materials and the dimensions of the fence to be built. The order refers to ‘the respondent’. Peter, Ruby and Norman are all named as respondents.
- Mr Wilson QC, for Mr Cooper, submitted that the order was irregular because it was made against deceased persons and, therefore, could be set aside.
- I agree that it could be, and should have been, set aside to the extent it purported to bind Ruby and Norman. The orders the tribunal may make include the way in which contributions for the fencing work are to be apportioned, or the amount that each adjoining owner is liable to pay. Because ‘each adjoining owner’ is not correctly identified, I agree that the order of 31 March 2015 was irregular.
- My comments about the validity or otherwise of the orders that followed the tribunal’s error in March 2015 assume that the Mr O'Connor’s application named the correct respondents.
The order of 29 May 2015
- On 13 May 2015, Mr O'Connor filed an application for reopening, correction, renewal or amendment of the 31 March 2015 order. Mr O'Connor asked the tribunal to renew the decision because ‘the respondents’ had not complied with the order.
- On 29 May 2016, the tribunal ordered that Mr O'Connor build the fence as per the order of 31 March 2016 and seek under 8.31 of the Act a contribution from Mr Cooper ‘in the approved form’.
- Counsel for Mr Cooper makes two points about this order. Firstly, he says that there is no reopening ground under s 133 of the QCAT Act.
- Section 133 permits an application for a renewal if it is not possible to comply with the tribunal’s order or there are problems interpreting, implementing or enforcing the tribunal’s final decision.
- Final, non-monetary decisions of the tribunal may be enforced by filing a copy of the decision, and an affidavit as to non-compliance, in the registry of the relevant court. On filing those documents, the tribunal’s decision is taken to be an order of the court and may be enforced accordingly.
- Therefore, I do not interpret the phrase ‘problems with … enforcing the tribunal’s final decision’ as including a party’s refusal to comply with a tribunal’s decision. There will be a ‘problem’ enforcing a tribunal decision if it is unclear (‘interpreting’) or if the fence cannot be built due to the physical characteristics of the land (‘implementing’) or the name of the respondent is misspelt (‘enforcing’). But it cannot include a de facto enforcement order, because the respondent has simply not engaged with the tribunal, in circumstance where the legislation clearly gives the enforcement power to courts and not the tribunal.
- Counsel for Mr Cooper also submitted that the order of 29 May 2015 was not a final decision that could have been made when the proceeding was originally decided because it was not an order that could be made under s 35 of the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act.
- I disagree. The order was to construct a fence. That is an order open to the tribunal under s 35(1)(b) of the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act. The tribunal’s order as to contribution, if properly worded, could have been an order about the way in which contributions are to be apportioned or reapportioned. To that limited extent, the tribunal’s order was within its power.
- Mr O'Connor did not demonstrate a ground for reopening. The tribunal should not have granted the reopening application.
- Counsel’s second point is that the application was out of time.
- Rule 92 of the QCAT Rules states that an application for reopening must be made within 28 days of the relevant day. ‘Relevant day’, in this case, was the date of the order to be renewed, 31 March 2015.
- Mr O'Connor did not make his application within 28 days of the relevant day. However, the tribunal has the power to extend time. Indeed, Mr Cooper relies on that power to bring this application for leave to appeal. The tribunal did not err in considering the application, although it would have been prudent to consider the fact that the application was filed late.
- Even if the tribunal had power to make the order, it should not have done so in the terms expressed. Assuming ‘8.31’ is a reference to s 31 of the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2001 (Qld), the time for Mr O'Connor to comply with s 31 had long passed. A notice to contribute for fencing work is for proposed work – ‘work to be carried out’.
The amended order of 29 May 2015
- Counsel submits that there was no application for the tribunal to amend the order of 31 March 2015 and, therefore, no jurisdiction to do so.
- On 10 August 2015, Mr O'Connor wrote to the tribunal asking for the orders of correction of the orders made on 31 March 2015 and 29 May 2015. He asked for a correction because the order of 31 March 2015 ‘… does not stipulate what action the Magistrates Court could be authorised to take if [Mr Cooper] did not comply, which is the case’.
- The tribunal is obliged to deal with matters in a way that is informal and quick. Because the relief Mr O'Connor sought was clear, I am not persuaded that the lack of a formal application means the tribunal has no jurisdiction. While the tribunal would prefer parties to comply with the tribunal rules, it cannot insist that they do so if the absence of compliance does not create procedural unfairness.
- Chapter 20 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) deals with the Magistrates Courts’ powers of enforcement of non-money orders. It is not for this tribunal to tell the court how it should exercise its wide powers under the UCPR which include r 899 – a substituted performance power. There was no basis for a correction of the order of 31 March 2016.
- The application to correct the order of 29 May 2015 was made because the court did not understand the reference to 8.31 of the Act.
- The reference to 8.31 was an obvious transcription error. It should have been a reference to s 31. The tribunal should have corrected that error and stopped, not making any further decision.
- Instead, the tribunal re-examined the application for renewal. This time, it correctly identified that Mr O'Connor did not have any ground for a renewal. But the decision had been made. The power to correct a mistake is limited to clerical errors, accidental slips or omissions, a mistake in calculation of figures or a misdescription, or a defect of form. It does not allow the tribunal to correct an error of judgment. The tribunal had no power to issue the second order of 29 May 2015, even though it was the correct decision.
The order of 25 January 2016
- On 15 December 2015, Mr O'Connor filed another application for reopening, correction, renewal or amendment. He wanted to correct the reference to 8.31 in the order of 29 May 2015. He also wanted to reword the tribunal’s decision to read:
‘It is now ordered under s 35 of the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2001 (Qld) that [Mr Cooper] pay [Mr O'Connor]:
a.$800 for reimbursement of earthmoving costs (ex GST);
b.$6799 for reimbursement of contractors costs (ex GST);
for the completion of the dividing fence work carried out by [Mr O'Connor] as per the provisions made by the tribunal on 29 May 2015
- Mr O'Connor referred to Attachment 1 in his application. The attachment is a handwritten document stating that the fence was built by Mr O'Connor’s contractors, Mr O'Connor wanted enforcement of the order that Mr Cooper reimburse his costs, the costs were as stated, and the original order was unenforceable because there were no monetary figure included.
- Mr O'Connor’s application to correct the reference to 8.31 is uncontroversial. It is unfortunate that the tribunal did not correct it in the earlier application.
- I have already observed that a non-monetary order can be enforced by the Magistrates Court. Mr O'Connor’s application to reword the order is not, in truth, an application to correct a decision. It might be an application to renew a decision. Alternatively, it might be an application for a final order because the order of 29 May 2015 contemplated a further order about the costs of the work.
- If it was an application to renew the decision, then Mr O'Connor faces the difficulty of s 134 of the QCAT Act; a final decision cannot be renewed again.
- I cannot read the order of 29 May as an interim decision. The tribunal order contemplates a process which might eventually lead the parties back to the tribunal but it does not contemplate Mr O'Connor coming back for a final order. It is evidence that Mr O'Connor did not consider it an interim order. He did not make an application for miscellaneous matters saying, in effect, ‘Well, I’ve done that now, can I have my final order?’. Instead, he applied to correct what he thought was a final order.
- Counsel for Mr Cooper suggested that the application might have been an application for a reopening under s 138 of the QCAT Act. It cannot be an application for a reopening. Mr O'Connor did not suggest there was a reopening ground and none exists. This is not a case where significant new evidence arose which was not reasonably available when the proceeding was first heard. It was evidence about the difficulty of enforcement.
- Counsel for Mr Cooper pointed out, Mr O'Connor did not provide the tribunal with copies of invoices to support his application. Although it is not bound by the rules of evidence, the tribunal should have been slow to act on an unsupported claim for payment.
The decision of 10 March 2016
- The decision of 10 March 2016 is a letter from the tribunal to Mr Cooper refusing his request to provide reasons for the decision of 25 January 2016. The letter is given under the hand of the Operation Support Manager, a registry officer, not a member, adjudicator or justice of the peace.
- Mr Cooper relies on this decision of the tribunal to argue that his application for leave to appeal is within time.
- Section 122(2) of the QCAT Act states that a party to a proceeding may, within 14 days after a decision takes effect, request that the tribunal give written reasons for the decision. Counsel for Mr Cooper submits that, because the tribunal must give the reasons, the decision not to give reasons must also be a decision of the tribunal.
- The tribunal provides an online form for requesting reasons for a decision. Predictably, because nothing in this proceeding was done correctly, Mr Cooper’s lawyers did not use the online form. Instead, the tribunal received a letter. As correspondence is handled by the registry, it is not surprising that the registry responded to that letter.
- The letter was a request for reasons, not a request for an extension of time in which to ask for reasons. The appropriate response from the tribunal should have been along the lines of ‘your request is out of time. You need to file an application for an extension of time.’ However, because the tribunal has conflated the concept of the request for reasons and a request for an extension of time, I must treat the decision on 10 March 2016 as a decision refusing an extension of time.
- As I have previously indicated, the tribunal has a discretion to extend a time limit for a procedural requirement. A decision to give relief from a procedural requirement can only be given by the tribunal. The ‘tribunal’ must be a member, adjudicator or justice of the peace. A decision to refuse an extension of time can be a decision of the Principal Registrar, but not the Operation support Manager.
- Counsel for Mr Cooper does not challenge the tribunal’s refusal to give reasons out of time, not does he give any cogent explanation for the delay in seeking reasons. The fact that the tribunal sent correspondence directly to Mr Cooper, rather than his lawyers, does not explain a delay of almost a month.
- Counsel for Mr Cooper does submit that a failure to give reasons is a fundamental error, justifying the setting aside of the orders made. But the nature and extent of the obligation to provide full reasons varies according to the nature of the case and it cannot be the case that a legitimate refusal to give reasons, pursuant to a statutory regime for the delivery of reasons, is a failure to give reasons which amounts to a failure to provide natural justice.
- Counsel for Mr Cooper has not pointed to an error in the decision of 10 March 2016. Putting aside the irregular nature of the decision, I can find no error in the decision.
Should I grant leave to appeal?
- Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary. Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.
- Counsel for Mr O'Connor did not seriously contest that there was tribunal error in this proceeding. Rather, he submitted that it would be unjust to set aside the tribunal’s decision. He submits that Mr Cooper did not engage with the tribunal until a judgment was registered in the Magistrates Court.
- That is not quite right. The tribunal received a letter from Mr Cooper on 30 January 2015 stating that there was an agreement between the parties, he had been busy with the drought, his dozer was about four hours away from the property and he would, essentially, ‘get around to it’. Unfortunately for all concerned, Mr O'Connor didn’t get a copy of this letter and the tribunal did not realise, as it should have, that the parties had an agreement to fence. Mr O'Connor should have simply sued on the agreement.
- However it is true that, after that letter, Mr Cooper did not engage with the tribunal. Counsel for Mr O'Connor referred me to the principles in Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University:
Of course, a just resolution of proceedings remains the paramount purpose … but what is a “just resolution” is to be understood in light of the purposes and objectives stated. Speed and efficiency, in the sense of minimum delay and expense, are seen as essential to a just resolution of proceedings. This should not detract from a proper opportunity being given to the parties to plead their case, but it suggests that limits may be placed upon re-pleading, when delay and cost are taken into account. The Rule’s reference to the need to minimise costs implies that an order for costs may not always provide sufficient compensation and therefore achieve a just resolution. It cannot therefore be said that a just resolution requires that a party be permitted to raise any arguable case at any point in the proceedings, on payment of costs.
- The High Court decision makes it clear that I must weigh up the nature and importance of the application, the point at which the application was made, whether Mr Cooper had a sufficient opportunity to present his case, and any explanation for the delay. Mr Cooper only made his application after judgment was entered in the Magistrates Court. He had a sufficient opportunity to present his case but chose not to engage with the tribunal. He did not explain his delay. Applying the principles in Aon, I should refuse the application for leave to appeal.
- However, Counsel for Mr Cooper raised the issue of ex debito justitiae; that a decision irregularly entered should not be permitted to stay on the record. The proposition is unexceptional. A decision which the tribunal had no power to make, should not be permitted to stand and that principle has already been acknowledged by the tribunal.
I have had some doubt as to the course I should take having regard to the delay… But I think that I ought not to allow the delay … to keep on foot against the defendants an irregular judgment… It is an irregular judgment and ought not to be on the records …
- Those comments were made in an earlier time, when the principles of Aon did not exist. However, even with the modern emphasis on efficiency, and minimising delay and costs, I am not persuaded that a series of decisions that are demonstrably without foundation should be permitted to stay on the tribunal record.
- Leave to appeal should be granted.
- Because the tribunal’s errors go to the heart of Mr O'Connor’s application, the appeal should be allowed and all decisions of the tribunal, save the decision of 10 March 2016, should be set aside.
- Parties to proceedings in the tribunal usually bear their own costs of the proceeding. The tribunal may make an order for costs if it is in the interests of justice to do so. In deciding whether to order costs, the tribunal may consider the nature and complexity of the dispute, the relative strengths of the claims, the financial circumstances of the parties and anything else the tribunal considers relevant.
- Counsel for Mr Cooper submits that Mr Cooper should have his costs of the appeal because of the many and manifest errors of the tribunal. He also submits that Mr O'Connor had the opportunity to save costs in the appeal by joining with Mr Cooper in correcting the record.
- Counsel for Mr O'Connor submits that Mr O'Connor should have his costs of the appeal because it would relieve the prejudice he suffered by Mr Cooper’s late application to the tribunal. He reminded me that Mr Cooper did not apply for an extension of time in which to file an application for leave to appeal and had no explanation for his delay in taking action.
- The decision of Dixon CJ is, again, of assistance:
I think so far as the delay affected the course afterwards taken by the plaintiff, I may take it into account in imposing terms… the defendants, as a condition of judgment being set aside pay all the costs which were incurred by the plaintiff in taxing costs or in any other respect after signing of the judgment.
- Requiring Mr Cooper to pay costs also accords with the principles in Aon and the tribunal’s power to order costs if a party unnecessarily disadvantages a party by not complying with a tribunal order or direction without reasonable excuse. Mr Cooper offered no explanation for failing to engage with the tribunal.
- Mr Cooper should pay Mr O'Connor’s costs of the appeal. I will take submissions as to which Scale should be applied. Although I have no power to so order, Mr Cooper should also pay Mr O'Connor’s costs of enforcement in the Magistrates Court.
- Counsel for Mr Cooper directed my attention to the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld). Indemnity certificates under that Act are only available in appeals from a decision of a court to the District Court, Supreme Court or High Court. While the tribunal may be a court, it is clear that appeals to the appeal tribunal are not within the terms of the Act. Further, the power to issue an indemnity certificate rests only in the Supreme Court or the District Court.
 Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2001 (Qld) s 30(2).
 Ibid s 31(2)(c).
 Ibid s 31(3).
 Ibid s 31(2)(a).
 Ibid s 30(3).
 Ibid s 31(6).
 Amies v Lerve  QCATA 061.
 Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2001 (Qld) s 31(2)(a).
 Succession Act 1981 (Qld) s 66(1).
 Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2001 (Qld) s 35(c).
 QCAT Act s 132(2).
 QCAT Act s 132(4).
 QCAT Act s 134(2)(b).
 Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2001 (Qld) s 35(1)(c).
 QCAT Act s 61.
 Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2001 (Qld) s 31(3).
 QCAT Act s 3(b).
 QCAT Act s 135.
 QCAT Act s 28(3)(b).
 QCAT Act s 61.
 Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247.
 Attorney-General v Kehoe  2 Qd R 350 at 356; Tully v McIntyre  2 Qd R 338.
 QCAT Act s 142(3)(a)(i).
 Pickering v McArthur  QCA 294 at .
 (2009) 239 CLR 175 at .
 See Redwerks Pty Ltd v ME & LN Rosemeyer Super Pty Ltd  QCATA 80.
 R T Company Proprietary Limited v Minister of State for the Interior (1957) 98 CLR 168.
 Ibid at 170.
 QCAT Act s 100.
 QCAT Act s 102(1).
 Ibid at 170.
 QCAT Act s 48(1)(a).
 Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) s 15.
- Published Case Name:
Cooper v O'Connor
- Shortened Case Name:
Cooper v O'Connor
 QCATA 180
Senior Member Stilgoe OAM
15 Nov 2016