Coppens v Waterwise Design Pty Ltd [2013] QCAT 64

CITATION: Coppens v Waterwise Design Pty Ltd [2013] QCAT 64 PARTIES: Josephine Rosalie Coppens (Applicant) v Waterwise Design Pty Ltd (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: BDL375-10 MATTER TYPE: Building matters HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe, Senior Member DELIVERED ON: 4 February 2013 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: 1. The application for miscellaneous matters is refused. CATCHWORDS: JURISDICTION – where question before tribunal subject to application for leave to appeal to Court of Appeal – where application for miscellaneous matters – whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the application – whether in interests of justice to consider application APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): This matter was heard and determined on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Ms Coppens had a dispute with Waterwise Design Pty Ltd about a waste treatment facility. Ms Coppens was an owner/builder. Waterwise designed a waste treatment facility for her property. [2] Following a compulsory conference, the tribunal had to determine this issue: Whether, under the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002, the Standard Plumbing and Drainage Regulation 2003, the On-Site Sewerage Code -- 1 of 2 -- 2 2002 and AS/NZ1547 of 2000, as they existed at 2 June 2005, the Treatment Facility could be lawfully approved by the Local Authority without the prior approval of the system by the Chief Executive of the Department of Natural Resources. [3] On 20 January 2012, the tribunal answered that question in the affirmative. Ms Coppens sought leave to appeal that decision. Leave was refused. Ms Coppens then sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. [4] On 1 November 2012, Ms Coppens filed an application for miscellaneous matters. Because the tribunal’s decision is under appeal to the Court of Appeal, it would be imprudent and premature to continue these proceedings until the Court of Appeal has delivered its decision. Ms Coppens should not be compelled to advance this dispute while she is seeking leave of the Court of Appeal. Rather than adjourn this application, I propose to dismiss it, so that Ms Coppens can reconsider her position after her application has been determined. [5] Of course, once the Court of Appeal has delivered its decision, then, as directed by the learned Member on 20 January 2012, the tribunal should list the proceedings for a directions hearing. [6] The application is dismissed. -- 2 of 2 --