Thompson v Ruad and Todhunter

CITATION:

Thompson v Ruad & Todhunter [2014] QCATA 359

PARTIES:	Emma Thompson (Applicant/appellant)
v
Alain Ruad Margarent Todhunter (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL295 -14

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Stilgoe, OAM

DELIVERED ON:

8 August 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The appeal tribunal’s direction four (4) dated 18 July 2014 dismissing these proceedings in the event of non-compliance by the applicant is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME – where application for leave to appeal filed out of time – where directions for submissions included self-executing order – where email request to extend time for submissions – where request not in correct form, not served and not actioned by registry before due date

Rintoul v State of Queensland & Ors (No 2)
[2014] QCAT 332

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 9 December 2013, the tribunal ordered that Ms Thompson pay Mr Raud and Ms Todhunter $1,613.60.
On 8 July 2014, Ms Thompson filed an application for leave to appeal that decision. Because the application was filed late[1], Ms Thompson also filed an application to extend time.
[1]QCAT Act s 143.
On 18 July 2014, the tribunal issued directions. Ms Thompson had to file and serve submissions about the extension of time application by 1 August 2014. The tribunal also directed that, if Ms Thompson did not file material by 1 August 2014, her application for leave to appeal would be dismissed.
Ms Thompson sent an email to the tribunal on the morning of 1 August 2014 asking for a further extension of time. The email did not come to the registry’s attention until 5 August 2014, at which time Ms Thompson was advised to file an application.
The registry referred the file to me on 7 August 2014. At that time, Ms Thompson had not filed an application. I therefore confirmed the effect of paragraph 4 of the directions dated 18 July 2014.
As the tribunal has previously observed, in Rintoul v State of Queensland & Ors (No 2)[2] self-executing order takes effect once there is non-compliance. The tribunal has no power to reverse that decision, or revive the proceedings, after that date. Merely sending a request for an extension of time is not enough. The tribunal is entitled to an application in proper form. Sending a request for an extension without sending a copy to the other side offends the principles of natural justice. Trusting that the tribunal registry will find and action such a request before the self-executing order takes effect is misconceived. Parties must take responsibility for the conduct of their actions. Finality in decision making is a key public interest principle.
[2]
Even if I could revive the proceedings, it would be a matter for my discretion. Ms Thompson was asking for an extension of time to file submissions to support an extension of time application. The dispute has been before the tribunal for some time. This application relates to an application for renewal. Ms Thompson had not complied with an order of the tribunal dated 20 June 2013 so Mr Raud and Ms Todhunter were forced to ask for another order. Ms Thompson’s application for leave to appeal must be dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Thompson, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT) of New South Wales. The respondents, Ruad and Todhunter, were the parties involved in the original proceeding before the CAT. The dispute centred on whether Thompson could be granted leave to appeal despite filing the application outside the statutory time limit. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal.

The court needed to determine whether the appellant's application for leave to appeal, which was lodged after the statutory time limit, could be considered. Additionally, the court examined whether the appellant's failure to comply with a self-executing order included in the appeal tribunal's directions justified the dismissal of the proceedings. A critical issue was whether the appellant's email request to extend the time for filing submissions was valid and whether the respondents' failure to object to the application for an extension constituted acquiescence.

The court held that the appellant's application for leave to appeal was filed outside the statutory time limit and, therefore, was not permissible unless the appellant could demonstrate a sufficient reason for the delay. The court noted that the appeal tribunal's directions included a self-executing order that required compliance by a specific date, and the appellant's failure to adhere to this order justified the tribunal's decision to dismiss the proceedings if the appellant did not comply. The court further found that the email request to extend time for filing submissions was not in the correct form, was not served on the respondents, and was not actioned by the registry before the due date. As a result, the court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated a sufficient reason to excuse the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal.

The court confirmed the appeal tribunal’s direction that the proceedings would be dismissed if the appellant did not comply with the self-executing order by the specified date. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established