Baille v Oakley [2013] QCAT 582

CITATION: Baille v Oakley [2013] QCAT 582 PARTIES: Kerry Baille Russell Baille (Appellants) V Meagan Lee Oakley (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: MCD0159/13 MATTER TYPE: Other minor civil dispute matters HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe OAM, Senior Member DELIVERED ON: 20 June 2013 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: 1. Application for stay refused. 2. Application for reopening refused. CATCHWORDS: MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – re-opening grounds APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): The appeal tribunal heard and determined this matter on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Mr and Ms Baille were tenants in Ms Oakley’s property. On 16 April 2013, the tribunal ordered that the balance of the rental bond be paid to Mr and Ms Baille. The tribunal amended its order on 3 June 2013 because the rental bond had already been paid. The tribunal ordered Ms Oakley to pay Mr and Ms Baille. Ms Oakley wants to reopen the tribunal hearing. She also wants a stay of the tribunal’s decision. [2] Ms Oakley applied for an adjournment of the hearing on 16 April 2013 because she is a teacher and that was the first day of term. However, Ms -- 1 of 2 -- 2 Oakley also suggested to the tribunal that: “the matter be heard in my absence on the following information and documentation provided.” [3] The tribunal can reopen a proceeding if Ms Oakley did not appear at the hearing and had a reasonable excuse for not attending1. The tribunal accepted Ms Oakley’s invitation to hear the dispute in her absence. Ms Oakley complains that she was not give a chance to respond personally and to present her case but that is not correct. Ms Oakley is clearly regretting her invitation to the tribunal that it decide the matter in her absence but she cannot now say that she was disadvantaged by the tribunal’s action. Ms Oakley’s failure to appear does not justify a reopening because she was not prevented from making submissions about her case through her failure to attend. [4] The tribunal can also reopen a proceeding if Ms Oakley would suffer substantial injustice because there is significant new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearing2. Ms Oakley points out in her application to reopen that she provided substantial evidence about the dispute. She does not say that there is extra evidence that was not available at the initial hearing. Ms Oakley has not established this ground for reopening. Ms Oakley’s application for a reopening is refused. [5] Ms Oakley has also asked for an extension of time in which to pay Mr and Ms Baille. Her application for an extension of time is based, on part, on her application for reopening. She also says that the death of her partner shortly after the hearing in April delayed her request for reasons for the decision and her application to reopen. Ms Oakley does not say what longer period she wants to pay Mr and Ms Baille and I note that the dispute has been ongoing for some time. Mr and Ms Baille should have the benefit of the order. 1 QCAT Act s 137(a). 2 Ibid s 137(b). -- 2 of 2 --