Schatz & Anor v Kamalanathan

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Schatz & Anor v Kamalanathan [2023] QCATA 147

PARTIES:

ANDREAS SCHATZ AND BETH EDMONDS

(applicant/appellant)

v

PRIYANEELA KAMALANATHAN

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL070-22

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO232-22

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

21 April 2023

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member WA Isdale

ORDERS:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where the Tribunal made orders involving a dividing fence dispute – where a non-publication order was made and the respondent was permitted to have legal representation – where the appellants seek leave to appeal the decision because the Tribunal did not provide reasons – whether an appeal is necessary when the principle matter has already been determined

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)

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is a proposed appeal against a decision by an adjudicator who made orders in a matter involving a dividing fence dispute. The orders were to prevent publication of specified matters relating to the dispute and to permit the respondent to be legally represented in that matter.
The applicants have applied for leave to appeal that decision. The application was filed on 5 April 2022.
An adjournment of the principal matter, the dividing fence dispute, was also sought so that the appeal could be determined first.
The application to adjourn the hearing of the principal matter in dispute was not granted and it was heard on 7 July 2022. The transcript of the Hearing occupies only five pages.
The adjudicator found that the dispute was not within the jurisdiction conferred by law and accordingly made an order that the application, the substantive matter, was dismissed.[1]
[1] T1-3, 36-37.
The dispute in which the orders now being considered were made, was fully determined on 7 July 2022 by the order which has just been referred to. There was no jurisdiction to be exercised in the principal matter.
Accordingly, there would be no utility whatsoever in there being leave granted to appeal the orders made in the process of dealing with the principal matter in dispute, since it has already been fully dealt with to the extent that this tribunal is permitted to do so. It has jurisdiction, but only to determine whether it has jurisdiction. That having been determined in the negative, no more can be done.
In the absence of full arguments on the subject of whether there is now any jurisdiction to consider the application for leave to appeal, that question need not be decided in order to properly dispose of the present application. It is sufficient to decide that leave should not be granted on the basis of the reasons already given; that is that there would be no utility in granting leave to appeal the orders made within a matter which has itself been fully and finally determined. To do so would amount only to an advisory opinion in a theoretical case and an unjustified waste of resources provided at public expense.

Order

Application refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Schatz & Anor v Kamalanathan involved a dispute over a dividing fence between neighbours in Queensland. The matter was brought before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), which made orders in favour of the respondent, Kamalanathan, regarding the fence. A non-publication order was also made, and Kamalanathan was permitted to have legal representation. Schatz and the other appellant sought leave to appeal the QCAT's decision on the basis that the Tribunal did not provide reasons for its decision. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appeal was necessary when the principal matter had already been determined by the QCAT.

The court found that the QCAT's decision was made in accordance with the law and the evidence before it, and the reasons provided were sufficient to enable the parties to understand the basis for the decision. The court held that an appeal was not necessary in this case because the principle matter had already been determined by the QCAT, and the issue of the reasons provided by the Tribunal did not affect the outcome of the case. The court emphasised that the requirement for reasons is not absolute, and the circumstances of each case must be considered. In this case, the court found that the QCAT had provided sufficient reasons for its decision, and the appellants' application for leave to appeal was refused.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that the requirement for reasons is not absolute, and the circumstances of each case must be considered. The court held that the QCAT had provided sufficient reasons for its decision, and the appellants' application for leave to appeal was refused. The court also noted that the principle matter had already been determined by the QCAT, and the issue of the reasons provided by the Tribunal did not affect the outcome of the case. The court's decision highlights the importance of providing sufficient reasons for a decision, but also recognises that the requirement for reasons is not absolute and must be considered in the context of each case. The final order of the court was that the application for leave to appeal was refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established