Background
Slavica Lake and Stuart and Wendy Hermann are neighbours with a long-running dispute about vegetation on the Hermanns’ side of their shared boundary at Ningi. In October 2022, QCAT made orders requiring specified tree, root-removal and root-barrier works. QCAT later extended time for, and partly allowed, an application to correct one of those orders.
In November 2025, Ms Lake sought leave to appeal, or appealed, the 2022 decision well outside the statutory time limit. She also applied for an extension of time. On 10 February 2026, QCAT’s Appeal Tribunal refused that extension in a direction that gave no reasons. Ms Lake sought judicial review, alleging jurisdictional error, legal unreasonableness and denial of procedural fairness.
The Court’s Holding
McLeod J dismissed the amended judicial-review application. The refusal of an extension of time did not finally determine the substantive dispute between the parties, so it was not a “final decision” attracting the written-decision requirements in s 121 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
The statutory scheme did not require the Appeal Tribunal to provide reasons for this s 61 extension-of-time decision. In that context, the absence of reasons did not establish procedural unfairness or legal unreasonableness. Ms Lake had filed submissions supporting her extension application and therefore had a fair opportunity to present her case. No jurisdictional error was identified.
Key Takeaways
- A QCAT refusal to extend time to commence an appeal is not a final decision on the underlying dispute.
- Where the QCAT Act does not require reasons for an extension-of-time decision, their absence alone does not show legal unreasonableness.
- Procedural fairness was satisfied because the applicant had an opportunity to make submissions on the extension application.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that judicial review is not available merely because a QCAT procedural ruling is brief or unreasoned. Whether reasons are required, and whether their absence can support an inference of legal error, depends on the applicable statutory context.
For parties seeking to appeal QCAT decisions out of time, the case underscores the importance of making a complete extension application and identifying a concrete jurisdictional error rather than relying on the absence of reasons alone.