Dupois v Griffiths and Taylor
[2022] QCATA 4
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
Dupois v Griffiths and Taylor[2022] QCATA 4
Dupois v Griffiths and Taylor[2022] QCATA 4
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Dupois v Griffiths and Taylor [2022] QCATA 4 |
PARTIES: | Charles Dupois (applicant/appellant) v Charles King Griffiths Simon Taylor (respondents) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | APL331-21 |
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S: | T1479-21 |
MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
DELIVERED ON: | 6 January 2022 |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Fitzpatrick |
ORDERS: | The application for a stay of the interlocutory decision made on 25 November 2021 is refused. |
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: | This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) |
Applicant: | Self-represented |
Respondent: | No appearance or representation in the Appeal Tribunal |
REASONS FOR DECISION
- [1]The applicant has sought reasons for a decision of the Appeal Tribunal made on 2 December 2021 refusing a stay of an interlocutory decision made on 25 November 2021 in the minor civil disputes’ jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
- [2]Under s 142(3)(a)(ii) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), leave of the Tribunal is required to appeal a decision of the Tribunal which is not final.
- [3]The application for leave to appeal or appeal filed by the applicant relates to a decision of the Tribunal which is not final.
- [4]The interlocutory decision was to refuse an application for an adjournment of the hearing on 6 December 2021, to refuse an application for an interim injunction and a non-publication order, and to refuse an application for dismissal of the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction or a stay. The decision also joined Charles King Griffiths as an applicant, giving leave for legal representation, and made orders in relation to filing of evidence. These are all matters of practice or procedure rather than determination of substantive rights.
- [5]At the time the application for leave to appeal or appeal was filed, the hearing of the substantive matters in dispute between the parties had not been heard.
- [6]Appeal tribunals are reluctant to interfere with the exercise of discretion on a point of practice or procedure because of the delay and cost which will result, hampering the administration of justice.[1] Delay in determination of substantive rights and waste of scarce public resources would have been the result of a grant of a stay of the decision the subject of the application for leave to appeal or appeal. A hearing date for determination of the substantive questions had been set within a relatively short time frame.
- [7]The applicant had a full opportunity to put his case at that hearing and if necessary, to pursue appeal rights after a final determination had been made.
- [8]Even apart from these issues, exceptional circumstances must be demonstrated before a stay will be granted when leave to appeal is required.[2] No exceptional circumstances are demonstrated by the applicant.
- [9]The Appeal Tribunal notes that on 14 December 2021 the applicant advised the Registry that he no longer intended to proceed with the application for leave to appeal or appeal.