Till v Work Health and Safety Queensland Office of Industrial Relations, Queensland Treasury Department

[2016] QCAT 33

CITATION: Till v Work Health and Safety Queensland – Office of Industrial Relations, Queensland Treasury Department [2016] QCAT 33

PARTIES:	Liam Till (Applicant)
v
Work Health and Safety Queensland – Office of Industrial Relations, Queensland Treasury Department Sunshine Coast Regional Council (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER: REO024-15

MATTER TYPE: Other civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Senior Member O’Callaghan

DELIVERED ON: 4 February 2016

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.    The application to reopen is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – application to reopen – where no reopening ground

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 139, sch 3

APPEARANCES:

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

1. Dr Till is concerned about the dangers to the public in dogs being off-leash at a beach on the Sunshine Coast.

2. He applied to the Tribunal to review a decision of the Office of Fair and Safe Work Queensland (‘OFSWQ’) not to investigate his concerns.

3. His application for review was dismissed by the Tribunal on the basis that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review the decision.

4. As the Member stated in the decision:[1]

   The Tribunal only has jurisdiction which is given to it by statute… the Tribunal is satisfied that that type of decision is not one of ones set out in the Act or the Regulations which are the subject to external review by the Tribunal.

   [1]Till v Workplace Health and Safety Queensland-Office of Industrial Relations Queensland Treasury Department & Anor [2015] QCAT 496.

5. Dr Till has applied to ‘reopen the decision’. He says he can produce further documents being correspondence from WHSQ and an internal review decision both of which advise him he can request reviews by external agencies of the decision.

6. The Tribunal has power to reopen a proceeding if a reopening ground exists for the Applicant party.[2]

   [2]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 139(4)(a).

7. A reopening ground is relevantly defined by the QCAT Act[3] to mean:

   (b) the party would suffer a substantial injustice if the proceeding was not reopened because significant new evidence has arisen and that evidence was not reasonably available when the proceeding was first heard and decided.

   [3]Ibid, sch 3.

8. Dr Till says the correspondence which says he has a right to external review is significant new evidence. He says he did not know he had to provide these documents at the time of the review, as he assumed they would have been provided by the government agency.

9. Dr Till has not established a reopening ground.

10. The correspondence was readily available at the time of the hearing.

11. More importantly, Dr Till has not suffered any substantial injustice. Even if the documents had been produced and were considered by the Tribunal they would not have changed the position that the decision he seeks to review is not a reviewable decision by the Tribunal.

12. The fact that the decision maker in the correspondence advised Dr Till that he could have the decisions considered by an external review body (i.e. the Ombudsman) does not change the position that QCAT has no statutory power to review the decisions.

13. The application to reopen is dismissed.