Booth v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2011] ICQ 32

CITATION: Juell Elizabeth Booth AND Department of Transport and Main Roads (C/2011/34) - Decision <http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au> INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND Industrial Relations Act 1999 - s. 341(1) - appeal against decision of industrial commission Juell Elizabeth Booth AND Department of Transport and Main Roads (C/2011/34) PRESIDENT HALL 5 December 2011 DECISION [1] By a decision dated 8 August 2011 and released the same day, Deputy President Bloomfield of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (the Commission), dismissed an application by Ms Juell Elizabeth Booth for an Extension of Time within which to file an Application for Reinstatement. [2] The discretion to extend the 21 day period within which an Application for Reinstatement must be commenced, is a discretion vested in the Commission. The discretion is not vested in this Court. This Court may interfere with the Commission's exercise of discretion only where the Commission errs in law or in principle, or delivers a decision which is so plainly unjust that an undiscoverable error of law may be presumed, compare House v The King1 at 504 to 505 per Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ. It is apparent from the authorities to which the Deputy President referred and what is said about those decisions in the Deputy President's reasons for decision, that the Deputy President understood the rules of law and the principles to be applied. A decision to refuse an extension of a very short period of limitation (21 days) where the Application is launched 11 years, eight months and three days out of time, is neither plainly unjust nor suggestive of an undisclosed error of law. Indeed, neither in her voluminous written materials nor in her oral submissions, has Ms Booth sought to identify any error of law. She has simply reargued her case on the papers. Section 341(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 does not vest the Industrial Court with jurisdiction to entertain such an Appeal. The submission that until recently Ms Booth was incapable of managing her affairs, failed on the evidence. It cannot be said that there was not any evidence to support the Deputy President's conclusion. [3] I dismiss the Appeal. I reserve all questions about costs. Dated 5 December 2011. D.R. HALL, President. Released: 5 December 2011 Appearances: The Appellant in person. Dr K.M. Spry instructed by Crown Law, for the Respondent. 1 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 -- 1 of 1 --