Spinosa v Victims Assist Queensland

CITATION:

Spinosa v Victims Assist Queensland [2017] QCATA 120

PARTIES:	Donato Spinosa (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Victims Assist Queensland (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:		REO020-16

MATTER TYPE:

Reopening

HEARING DATE:

21 September 2017

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Carmody

DELIVERED ON:

23 October 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The application to reopen the appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

REOPENING – where the applicant seeks to reopen appeal proceedings – where the tribunal has no power to reopen appeal proceedings – where the application to reopen is dismissed

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 138(1)

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT Donato Spinosa on behalf of the Applicant
RESPONDENT Brendan James (solicitor) on behalf of the Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicant seeks to reopen an appeal under s 138(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
The grounds for reopening can be summarised as follows:
·    it was unfair that the applicant’s appeal was summarily dismissed for non-compliance with tribunal directions due to an honest mistake;
·    the tribunal erred in finding that the conduct the applicant complained of in the appeal was not unreasonable;
·    the fact that police took a witness statement from the applicant regarding his complaint indicated that the matter was sufficiently serious to warrant a finding that the behaviour complained of in the appeal was unreasonable; and
·    the tribunal’s original decision failed to take into account key considerations, including that Counsel for the respondent “lied in court”.
The respondent submits that the real issue is a legally narrow one, and the tribunal must decide if it has the power to reopen appeal proceedings.
The relevant provision of the QCAT Act states:
138 Application to reopen …
(5) A party can not make an application under this section in relation to a decision the subject of an appeal, or an application for leave to appeal, under part 8.
(6) Subsection (5) applies whether or not the appeal or application has been decided.
The applicant says that regardless of the governing legislation, all he seeks is a fair hearing.
Undoubtedly the applicant feels as though there has been a miscarriage of justice – however the meaning of s 138 is clear. The tribunal has no power to reopen a proceeding that is or has been the subject of an application for leave to appeal or appeal, including after it has been decided.
Reopening the applicant’s appeal would impermissibly undermine the finality of the tribunal’s decision-making powers and functions, and the application must be refused as a matter of law.

Orders

1. The application to reopen the appeal is refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Spinosa v Victims Assist Queensland was brought before the tribunal by the applicant, Mr Spinosa, who sought to reopen proceedings related to a decision by Victims Assist Queensland. Mr Spinosa's initial appeal was dismissed, and he now sought to reopen these proceedings on the grounds that there was new evidence and that the initial decision was flawed. The tribunal was tasked with determining whether it had the jurisdiction to reopen the appeal proceedings and, if so, whether the application should be granted.

The tribunal considered the legal principles governing the reopening of appeal proceedings, including the circumstances under which such an application could be justified. It examined whether the application met the criteria for reopening, including the presence of new evidence and whether the initial decision was flawed to the extent that it warranted reconsideration. The tribunal also assessed whether the delay in making the application affected its ability to grant the request.

In reaching its decision, the tribunal found that it did not have the inherent jurisdiction to reopen appeal proceedings in these circumstances. It noted that the statutory framework governing appeals did not provide for the reopening of proceedings once a decision had been made. Furthermore, the tribunal was satisfied that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the exercise of its discretion to reopen the proceedings. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the application to reopen the appeal.

The tribunal's decision was final, and the appeal was not reopened. The tribunal explicitly ordered that the application to reopen the appeal proceedings was refused, and no further action could be taken in relation to the initial decision. This conclusion was based on the tribunal's assessment of the statutory framework and its inherent jurisdiction, which did not support the reopening of the proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established