Campbell v Kerry M Ryan Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 356

CITATION: Campbell v Kerry M Ryan Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 356 PARTIES: Stephen John Campbell (Applicant/Appellant) v Kerry M Ryan Pty Ltd (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: APL372-12 MATTER TYPE: Appeals HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Judicial Member Trafford-Walker Member Deane DELIVERED ON: 7 February 2014 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: 1. The Respondent’s application for an extension of time is allowed. 2. The Respondent must file in the Tribunal and give to the Applicant a copy of any submissions on costs of the appeal, by 4.00pm on 14 February 2014. 3. If no submissions in support of an application for cost are filed by the Respondent by 4.00pm on 14 February 2014 there shall be no order as to costs in the appeal. 4. The Applicant must file in the Tribunal and give to the Respondent a copy of any submissions on costs of the appeal, by 4.00pm on 21 February 2014. 5. The Respondent must file in the Tribunal and give to the Applicant a copy of any submissions in reply on costs of the appeal, by 4.00pm on 28 February 2014. 6. Any application for costs of the appeal will be determined on the papers without an oral hearing unless a party requests an oral hearing. -- 1 of 2 -- 2 CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – administrative oversight – allowed Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 61 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 (QCAT Act). REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On 4 November 2014 we published our reasons for refusing leave to appeal and made directions in relation to the issue of costs. The Respondent seeks an extension of time within which to file submissions. The Applicant opposes the order because the appeal was determined some time ago and the intervening time ought to have been adequate to file submissions. [2] We grant the extension of time in the circumstances. [3] The Respondent was represented by lawyers in these proceedings. Apparently through some administrative oversight the registry sent the decision which included the costs directions and reasons direct to the Respondent and not to the lawyers. [4] No submissions were filed by or on behalf of the Respondent because the Respondent’s lawyers were unaware of the directions. It seems the Respondent did not communicate the decision to the lawyers on an expectation that the lawyers would have received direct communication from the registry. [5] By letter dated 28 November 2013 the Respondent’s lawyers sought a copy of the relevant decision from the Tribunal and requested an extension of time. On or about 13 December 2013 the Respondent’s lawyers received a copy of the decision. Subsequently directions issued in relation to the extension of time application. [6] We do not consider it unreasonable for the Respondent not to have filed costs submissions in circumstances where it was awaiting determination of an extension of time application. [7] The Tribunal has power to extend time even where the time for compliance has passed.1 The Applicant has not demonstrated any prejudice will flow from the granting of the extension. 1 QCAT Act s 61(2). -- 2 of 2 --