Dewis v Cape York Institute [2026] QCATA 13

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Dewis v Cape York Institute [2026] QCATA 13 PARTIES: TEMIRA DEWIS (applicant/appellant) v CAPE YORK INSTITUTE (ABN 39 153 770 346) (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: APL192-23 ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S: MCDQ50173/22 (Cairns) MATTER TYPE: Appeals DELIVERED ON: 20 February 2026 HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Judicial Member Rinaudo AM ORDERS: IT IS THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL THAT: Leave to appeal is refused. The application for leave to appeal or appeal is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – where appellant claimed tuition fees in respect of son – where appellant asserts Tribunal below should have deducted sums for laptop and formal graduation expenses – where appellant concedes other costs – where respondent submitted laptops were available under scheme but appellant chose to purchase one for higher price – whether magistrate erred in disallowing claims for laptop and formal Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142(1), s 146, s 147 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 Ericson v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCA 391 Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577 -- 1 of 6 -- 2 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41 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 Background [1] An application was filed by the Cape York Leaders Program (‘CYLP’) on 19 January 2023, as applicant in the QCAT Tribunal in Cairns, for monies owing for education costs pursuant to a scheme to assist Indigenous students. [2] On 12 June 2023 the Tribunal in Cairns ordered the appellant pay to the respondent the sum of 1. Claim $5,560.00 2. Interest $646.66 3. Costs $185.45 Totaling $6,392.11. [3] The claim is in respect of tuition fees payable by the appellant for education costs of her son Roman. [4] The appellant appeals on the basis that the Tribunal should have deducted the sums of $1,593.00 for a laptop and formal and graduation expenses. The appellant concedes that the proper amount of the order should therefore be 1. Claim $3967.00 2. Interest $646.66 3. Costs $185.45 Making a total of $4,798.66 Such amount to be paid over three equal fortnightly payments. [5] In her application for leave to appeal or appeal the appellant says, “I believe the decision made should have considered the two expenses paid by myself as these align to what CYLP claims to support”. [6] The grounds of appeal are stated as follows: On page 24 of the parent handbook, states Cape York Leaders Program Academy Leaders Secondary Phase Pays for: Core educational items, dot point 4 – Laptop Computers/tablets – purchase or hire for students in Year 11 and above only. School formals – dot point one – $500 allocated once for students in Year 12. This can be used for expenses associated with a graduation or formal. Receipt previously provided by me for expenses relating to my son includes laptop purchase (23/04/2020), formal and graduations expenses totaling $1,593. -- 2 of 6 -- 3 I believe the decision made, should have considered the two expenses paid by myself as these align to what CYLP claims to support. For noting, my son attended the programs leadership camp in January 2020, which I paid his airfare to Brisbane from Melbourne to attend, and we maintained engagement with the program and some of the amazing indigenous support officers beyond 2021. [7] The appellant also says: Unfortunately, I was not served a notice of hearing for 12 June 2023 therefore was unaware of the hearing. I note, I did receive 2 phone calls from a private number on 12/06/2023 whilst I was working. In addition, I received an email from Stephen Agius on 08/06/23 titled: submission Temira Dewis. The email was then recalled, shortly after. [8] The application came before the Tribunal in Cairns where a learned magistrate sitting as a QCAT Member heard and determined the matter in the absence of the appellant. [9] The appellant does not argue that the learned magistrate was in error in proceeding in her absence. It appears that all enquiries were made, including phoning the appellant on the day of the hearing. [10] The learned magistrate set out the basis of the claim as follows: In relation to the claim, the Cape York institute provides a program for indigenous children who are advanced, and, to support the program parents of the children enter into a parent agreement, and this was signed by Ms Temira Dewis on 23 February 2016, and that relevantly includes a number of boxes. She ticked the box which included the payment schedule. The payment schedule was attached to the application, and that provides for a fee - and this is a fee paid by parents where they contribute to the gap between the costs of the program of the grant funds received by the institute, and that fee in the payment schedule is an amount of $2080 per annum, or $80 per fortnight. [11] Then attached to the application is a ledger, which notes that payments were made by Ms Dewis from 1 February 2018 to 10 February 2021, and there is an amount outstanding of $5,560 and that would indicate that payments were paid periodically but the ledger confirms an outstanding amount of $5,560. The learned magistrate noted that the representative of the applicant before him gave sworn oral evidence confirming that the ledger was true and correct to the best of his knowledge. [12] Ms Dewis accepts that there are monies owing to the respondent but asks that the two amounts set out above be deducted from that amount owing. Applicable law [13] A party to a proceeding may appeal to the Appeal Tribunal against a decision of the Tribunal in the proceeding.1 Leave is required if the appeal involves a question of fact or mixed law and fact.2 The principles to be applied in considering whether leave to appeal should be granted are: (a) Is there a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision?3 1 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 142(1) (‘QCAT Act’). 2 Ibid s 142(3)(b). 3 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41. -- 3 of 6 -- 4 (b) Is there a reasonable prospect that the applicant will obtain substantive relief?4 (c) Is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by some error?5 (d) Is there a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the appellate court or tribunal, would be to the public advantage?6 [14] If leave to appeal is granted, in deciding the appeal on a question of law the Appeal Tribunal may confirm or amend the decision, set aside the decision and substitute its own decision or set aside the decision and remit the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration.7 The Appeal Tribunal may set aside the decision and substitute its own decision only if this results in the disposition of the appeal entirely in the appellant’s favour.8 An appeal on a question of fact or mixed law and fact must be conducted by way of rehearing.9 The Appeal Tribunal may confirm or amend the decision, set aside the decision and substitute its own decision or set aside the decision and remit the matter to the tribunal for reconsideration.10 The Tribunal hearing [15] At the original hearing the learned magistrate made extensive inquiries of the representatives of the applicant Institute who appeared before him and concluded: Now, before we proceed, I’ll just – as I’ve indicated before, I noted that Ms Dewis has not appeared, and attempts have made to contact her. Given that she has given – been given notice of the hearing, and that the address has been the same address throughout the matter, and it is the telephone number provided by her, I’m satisfied I may proceed to hear and determine the application in their absence, pursuant to sections 92 and 93 of the QCAT Act. Now – and that’s noting section 3 of the Act specifically provides that an object of the Act is to have the tribunal deal with matters in a way that’s accessible, fair, just, economical, informal, and quick. She has been given notice. Attempts were made to contact her. She has not appeared, and therefore it’d be contrary to the objects of the Act to not proceed.11 [16] After extensive submissions and after satisfying himself about the issues and the facts including reading the material submitted by the appellant, the learned magistrate gave his decision.12 [17] The learned magistrate was satisfied that the amount owing by the appellant was $5,560.00. He was not satisfied that the appellant had provided a defence to the claim. The learned magistrate said: Ms Dewis also said that her – she felt that her son was not adequately supported during COVID. In response, the institute said that her son had been supplied with wi-fi, and there were no concerns raised in relation to the equipment. In 4 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 [13]. 5 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41. 6 Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388, 389; McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577, 578, 580. 7 QCAT Act s 146. 8 Ericson v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCA 391. 9 QCAT Act s 147(2). 10 QCAT Act s 147(3). 11 Transcript page 1-6, lines 25 – 35. 12 Transcript pages 1-25 to 1-27. -- 4 of 6 -- 5 any event, Ms Dewis was not here to give evidence to support this claim, and, further, I note that it is a minor debt claim. The claim is liquidated, and her claim is effectively a separate claim which would need to be filed as a separate application. Regardless of that, even if it could be considered as a counter- application to this application, in the absence of her attending to support her counter-application, I’m not satisfied that it is sustained. [18] In addition, the learned magistrate did not award a further amount of $1,223.00 for credit collection costs but did allow interest in the sum of $646.66 calculated on the amount owing of $2,100.00 from 1 February 2019 $3,480.00 from September 2020 and $5,560.00 from 10 February 2021. An amount of $185.45 was allowed being the filing fee of $130.70 and bailiff’s fee of $54.75. Submissions [19] The appellant submits that she believed that the program was more interested in power, control and compliance rather than support, transparency, and fairness for families and students. [20] The appellant submits that there was no assistance with Wifi during COVID and no laptop was offered or support to purchase one. The appellant accepts that she owes the respondent monies but seeks the two amounts for the formal and the laptop which were, as listed on page 24 of the parent handbook, noted as Core educational items. (I note that the copy of the handbook on the file these items are listed on page 23. Nothing turns on this.) [21] The appellant admits that there was a breakdown in the relationship because the appellant says the program lacked transparency and honesty as to what financial support and investment was provided for her child. [22] The respondent submits that they do not agree that that Dewis was denied a laptop. There were spare laptops available which could have been supplied to the appellant’s son. However the appellant chose to buy a laptop for a higher price. The respondent submitted that it was not fair that the appellant had ignored the process and purchased a laptop for a higher price than one could have been supplied to her. It is submitted that the communication issue arose from the son’s lack of engagement in the program. [23] The respondent made the following submission in conclusion: (a) At no stage did CYLP stop supporting the appellant or her son. (b) Despite the lack of engagement, the CYLP Support Officers continued to engage with the son. (c) Despite the appellant not paying the fees the program continued to support the son through the program. (d) We have provided much evidence to support our claim. (e) Out of good faith we offered the appellant a $500.00 discount to settle the claim being equivalent to the formal reimbursement however the appellant rejected this offer. (f) We do not have unlimited budget and so whilst we do our best to cater to every student’s needs we do need to have some generic process in place i.e. the request for laptop purchases. -- 5 of 6 -- 6 (g) CYLP does not accept the appellant followed the process around laptop purchases and rejects any assertion that she was spoken to in a disrespectful manner. (h) CYLP does agree the relationship has broken down which is why we are here despite numerous attempts to resolve the matter. (i) If the case is reviewed then the respondent reserves the right to charge interest up to the date that revised judgment is entered. Discussion and decision [24] As noted above leave to appeal is required if the appeal involves a question of fact or mixed law and fact. From the submissions no factual or legal error by the learned magistrate is disclosed. [25] The appellant says that she admits that she owes monies to the respondent, indeed in the sum for which judgment was given, $6,392.11. The appellant seeks a sum of $1,593.00 for a laptop and formal and graduating expenses. The appellant accepts that she owes $4,798.66. [26] There is no submission that the learned magistrate fell into legal error in arriving at his decision. I am satisfied there was no such error. The learned magistrate considered all issues appropriately, including the claims the appellant made at the original hearing. The learned magistrate considered the issues now raised by the appellant in respect of not being supported during COVID and dealt with the matter as set out in paragraphs [14]-[16] above. [27] In coming to the decision he did, I am satisfied that the learned magistrate considered the issues and made his decision on the evidence available. I am equally satisfied that for some reason the relationship between the parties broke down, possibly due to COVID, with the unfortunate consequence that issues that could have been resolved by normal communication were not. [28] In my view it is not envisaged by the agreement that a parent buy a computer for their child and seek reimbursement. The respondent would not have control of the value of such a purchase. [29] Again, had there been normal communication between the parties, the matter relating to the formal could also have been resolved at the time. [30] Having said that, it is my view that the learned magistrate did not fall into error and properly dealt with the matters raised by the appellant here during the proceedings (refer paragraph [17] above). In the circumstances, there is no reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision. [31] As stated by the learned magistrate the appellant may have a claim against the respondent in respect of the two items referred to in this appeal, but in any event, monies were owing in accordance with the formal agreement entered into by the parties. The appellant has acknowledged as much. [32] Accordingly, leave is not granted and the appeal is dismissed. -- 6 of 6 --