Tilecorp Pty Ltd v Pinnacle Seal Pty Ltd

CITATION:		Tilecorp Pty Ltd v Pinnacle Seal Pty Ltd [2011] QCAT 52
PARTIES:	Tilecorp Pty Ltd
v
Pinnacle Seal Pty Ltd

APPLICATION NUMBER:

REO023-10

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

19 January 2011

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Peta Stilgoe, Member

DELIVERED ON:

11 February 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The application to reopen is refused.

CATCHWORDS :

REOPEN PROCEEDINGS – where applicant failed to attend compulsory conference – where order made in his absence – where applicant noted date for conference incorrectly – whether a reasonable excuse

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 ss 72, 137

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Mullan, the owner of Tilecorp Pty Ltd did not attend a compulsory conference set down for 22 October 2010 because he wrongly entered the date for hearing in his calendar.
At the compulsory conference, pursuant to s 72(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) Professor Ashman ordered:

a)That Tilecorp pay Pinnacle Seal $10,912.00 including GST within 14 days;
b)That Pinnacle be relieved from any liability for Tilecorp’s claim of $12,240.00 plus GST.

Tilecorp has applied to reopen the order.
Section 72(3) provides that the Act applies to Professor Ashman’s decision as if it was a decision made by the tribunal constituted for the hearing. An order can be reopened if a party did not appear at the hearing of a proceeding and had a reasonable excuse for not attending: s 137 QCAT Act.
The question is whether Tilecorp had a reasonable excuse for its non-attendance. This tribunal has already determined that missing a date through inadvertence is not a reasonable excuse.[1] The President articulated the rationale for a seemingly harsh decision[2]:

“In the context of the legislation and the demands upon public resources like those which fund QCAT it is not unreasonable to impose, upon a party, an expectation and an obligation that it will ensure it acts in its own best interests, or accept the consequences; and that mistakes like those made here, while attracting sympathy, can no longer prevail over statutory and practical constraints on available resources for dispute resolution.
When these matters are appreciated, it will be seen that a party’s own fundamental error in misreading a document cannot be categorised as a ‘reasonable excuse’ for the purpose of revisiting proceedings which were otherwise correctly and legitimately brought to an end.”
[1] Breezeway Developments Pty Ltd v ADG Hydraulics Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 069
[2] Supra at [12] – [13]

In the absence of any other reason for Mr Mullan’s failure to attend the compulsory conference, the application to reopen must fail.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tilecorp Pty Ltd, a company in the business of supplying tiles, filed proceedings against Pinnacle Seal Pty Ltd, a supplier of tile adhesives, in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The dispute centred around the quality of tile adhesive supplied by Pinnacle to Tilecorp, which allegedly caused damage to tiles supplied by Tilecorp to customers. The legal issues in this case involved whether the court should permit Tilecorp to reopen the proceedings after it had failed to attend a compulsory conference and an order had been made in its absence.

The court was required to determine whether Tilecorp had a reasonable excuse for not attending the conference. Tilecorp argued that it had noted the conference date incorrectly due to a misunderstanding of the directions provided by the court. The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the communication between the parties and the court, and the reasons provided by Tilecorp for its failure to attend the conference. The court held that the misunderstanding of the directions did not constitute a reasonable excuse for Tilecorp's failure to attend the conference. The court found that Tilecorp's failure to attend the conference was due to its own negligence and that it had not taken reasonable steps to ensure that it complied with the court's directions.

As a result, the court refused the application to reopen the proceedings. The court held that it was not in the interests of justice to permit the reopening of the proceedings given the significant delay and the potential prejudice to the respondent. The court noted that the failure to attend the conference had caused significant inconvenience and expense to the respondent, and that the reopening of the proceedings would further delay the resolution of the dispute. The court also held that the respondent had a legitimate interest in the timely resolution of the dispute and that the reopening of the proceedings would undermine that interest.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established