Foxworth Pty Ltd v Belz[2016] QCATA 194

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers without the attendance of either party in accordance with s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act). The respondent did not file any material or submissions in reply by 1 September 2016 as directed.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. [1]
   This application is for $5,000 as a debt or liquidated demand of money based on alleged non-performance of an employment contract. A hearing was previously postponed pending resolution of a concurrent anti-discrimination claim against the applicant by the respondent.

The context

2. [2]
   The respondent worked for the applicant (trading as Mango 4 Office Technology) as a service work controller for ten years between 2005 and 2015.
3. [3]
   On 10 September 2015, she gave two weeks’ notice of her intended resignation, but withdrew it the next day after agreeing to resume employment on an increased salary and two ‘loyalty payments’ of $5,000; the first of which was paid on 14 September 2015. She later changed her mind again and irrevocably resigned effective 26 September 2015 amid allegations of workplace bullying and undue pressure.
4. [4]
   Despite initially promising to repay the $5,000 inducement the company had already paid her, the respondent now refuses to do so and contests the legal enforceability of her undertaking on the grounds of “no valuable consideration” or, alternatively, total failure of consideration, an equal set-off of “full entitlements on resignation” and breach of condition.
5. [5]
   The tribunal hearing of the dispute fixed for 7 June 2016 was adjourned by the tribunal on its own initiative in the belief that the concurrent Anti-Discrimination Commission proceedings pending between the parties had precedence and were more appropriately disposed of first.
6. [6]
   Leave to appeal the decision to adjourn is sought in circumstances wherein the applicant contends that:

• the claims have no overlapping relevance or consequence;
• the discrimination proceedings are purely retaliatory and devoid of merit;
• the response solely raises contract defences and does not involve any common issues;
• the parties are both ready and willing to proceed with the QCAT hearing, whereas the anti-discrimination proceeding has not yet been set down for a contested hearing; and
• the uncertainty caused by the delay in finalising the minor civil dispute is unfair to the parties.

Appealing procedural discretions

7. [7]
   QCAT’s paramount duty is to deal with matters within its jurisdiction and parties in an accessible, fair, just, responsive economical, informal and quick way.^[1] As a corollary, parties are entitled to expect that a hearing will proceed at the place and on the day appointed. Otherwise, subject only to the QCAT Act and the rules,^[2] the procedure for a proceeding is at the tribunal’s discretion, including if and when it is appropriate to exercise the adjournment power^[3] and to make any necessary ancillary orders.^[4]
8. [8]
   A party may appeal against a tribunal decision to adjourn a minor debt proceeding under s 142(1) QCAT Act only with leave.^[5] Leave is usually reserved for cases with special features warranting appellate intervention such as where the chosen option is ‘clearly wrong’ and the source of substantial injustice or prejudice to the applicant. A mere difference of opinion – even a strong one – is insufficient.
9. [9]
   To minimise delay, disruption and costs as well as duly acknowledge the advantages that a first instance tribunal can have over it the appeal tribunal exercises extra restraint before reviewing or disturbing decisions that are both interlocutory and discretionary in a matter of practice and procedure especially one to do with the conduct of tribunal business.^[6]
10. [10]
    Even a questionable discretionary decision will be left intact unless it is marred by vitiating error in the House v The King sense^[7] such as the application of a wrong principle, a mistake of fact, reliance on irrelevant considerations or overriding unreasonableness, irrationality or injustice.
11. [11]
    At issue is whether the fact that the same parties are embroiled in other outstanding legal proceedings is relevant to the adjournment discretion. The short answer is: not always. The mere fact a claim is started in another jurisdiction after a QCAT application has been filed does not “require the latter to hibernate”.^[8] Even if the issues are substantially the same the tribunal is not bound by any findings made by another entity about them. On the contrary, it must act fairly and according to the substantial merits of the case.^[9]
12. [12]
    In conducting a proceeding, the tribunal is only obliged to apply the rules, practices and procedures of courts to the extent it considers appropriate, including the rule that an issue already decided between the parties cannot be re-litigated. Technically, decisions by other adjudicative bodies are merely inconclusive opinions that carry the weight, if any, a tribunal accords to them in the course of acting on its own independent assessment of the evidence and other information before it.  Likewise, no issue estoppel or res judicata arises from minor civil dispute decisions.^[10] Therefore, another decision maker is not prevented from deciding an issue differently from the way it was decided by QCAT.
13. [13]
    Here, however, the question as to whether Mango 4 Office Technology’s general manager or other staff intimidated the respondent – which is denied – is logically and legally different from the question of whether she owes the company a $5,000 debt. One proposition can be accepted while the other rejected without inconsistency or both might be equally true.
14. [14]
    Unfortunately, the tribunal exercised its adjournment discretion in the mistaken view that the anti-discrimination proceedings automatically took priority and its findings on any common issues were somehow necessarily logically relevant or legally binding in the tribunal dispute and that it was potentially embarrassing or prejudicial to hear it first.
15. [15]
    The threshold for obtaining leave is crossed here. Leave is warranted because the applicant has demonstrated legal error and that an injustice would be done to it if the adjournment decision was allowed to stand.

ORDERS

1. Leave to appeal is granted.
2. The appeal is allowed.
3. The matter is remitted to the tribunal to be relisted for hearing on the merits according to law and as soon as practicable.