Aarons v Greenpoint Pty Ltd - [2025] QCATA 42

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Aarons v Greenpoint Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QCATA 42

PARTIES:

ADAM AARONS

(applicant/appellant)

GREENPOINT PTY LTD

(first respondent)

SCOTT MACINTOSH

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL369-24

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

Q11423-24

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

19 February 2025 (decision)

11 September 2025 (reasons)

HEARING DATE:

19 February 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Rinaudo AM

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to section 147 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), there is no error of fact or law in the decision of the original Tribunal dated 25 November 2024.

2. Leave is not granted and the appeal is dismissed.

3. If the applicant has not voluntarily vacated the premises by midnight on Sunday, 23 February 2025, the warrant of possession issued on 25 November 2024 will take effect on Monday, 24 February 2025 and is to be executed as soon as reasonably practical after taking effect and will remain in effect to expire on Friday, 28 February 2025.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – WHAT IS – GENERALLY – where the residential tenancy agreement was terminated on the grounds of objectional behaviour – where a warrant of possession was issued – where the applicant appeals those orders – where the applicant submits he was not given sufficient time to prepare for the hearing – where the applicant submits the material before the original decision maker was false – where the applicant submits the respondent’s submissions were baseless – whether the appeal should be allowed

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2009 (Qld)

Allen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCATA 66
Campbell v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCATA 34

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
First respondent:	Self-represented

Second respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

At the commencement of the hearing Mr Aarons (‘applicant’) advised the Tribunal that he would be vacating the premises on 23 February 2025. On that basis, the parties took some time to see whether they could reach an agreement by consent on the application. Ultimately, they were unable to do so, and the matter proceeded for determination by the Tribunal. The Tribunal notes that the applicant did indeed vacate the premises on 23 February 2025.
The applicant appeals an order made in the matter of Q11423-24, made by an Adjudicator on 25 November 2024, that:
(a)the residential tenancy agreement between the parties be terminated as of midnight 12 December 2024 on the grounds of objectionable behaviour;
(b)a warrant of possession was issued that authorised a police officer to enter the premises on Bayview Street, Runaway Bay, Queensland, 4216;
(c)the warrant shall take effect on 16 December 2024 and will remain in effect to expire on 30 December 2024;
(d)the warrant is to be executed as soon as reasonably practical after taking…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Aarons v Greenpoint Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Aarons v Greenpoint Pty Ltd [2025] QCATA 42
Case: [2025] QCATA 42
Decision Date: 19 February 2025 (decision) 11 September 2025 (reasons)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Aarons v Greenpoint Pty Ltd, the appellant, Aarons, contested the termination of his residential tenancy on the basis of objectionable behaviour. The tenancy was terminated following the issuance of a warrant of possession, which the appellant now appeals. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was tasked with deciding whether the appeal should be allowed. The appellant argued that he was not given sufficient time to prepare for the hearing, that the material before the original decision maker was false, and that the respondent’s submissions were baseless.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the appeal should be allowed on the grounds of alleged errors of fact or law in the original QCAT decision. The appellant contended that he had not been given adequate time to prepare for the hearing, which he claimed prejudiced his ability to effectively argue his case. The appellant also alleged that the material submitted to the original decision maker was false and that the respondent’s submissions were baseless. The respondent, Greenpoint Pty Ltd, maintained that all emails had been submitted accurately and that there had been no manipulation of the evidence. The respondent argued that the volume and nature of the emails sent by the appellant constituted objectionable behaviour under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld).

The Court found that there was no error of fact or law in the original QCAT decision. The Court noted that the appellant had not provided any evidence to support his claims of insufficient preparation time or false material. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Adjudicator had appropriately considered the content and volume of the emails, finding them to be threatening and harassing. The Court concluded that the Adjudicator's decision to terminate the tenancy due to objectionable behaviour was justified and that the appeal should be dismissed. Consequently, the Court upheld the original QCAT decision and denied the appellant's appeal.

The final orders of the Court were that there was no error of fact or law in the original QCAT decision, leave to appeal was not granted, and the appeal was dismissed. The Court also reiterated that if the appellant had not vacated the premises by a specified date, the warrant of possession would take effect on a subsequent date and would remain in effect until a final expiration date.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to section 147 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), there is no error of fact or law in the decision of the original Tribunal dated 25 November 2024.

2. Leave is not granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The respondent submitted that:(a)all the emails received from the applicant had been submitted;(b)there had been no “doctoring” of the emails; and(c)they had been forwarded to the Tribunal as received by them.The Decision under review The Adjudicator made reference to the emails in the following way:[7]There are some very thinly veiled threats that are made throughout there directly to you, Miss Vivlios, throughout it. The sheer volume alone, 464, from May to October, is ludicrous. There’s nothing that needed to be – if something dire had happened, I would understand that volume. If something catastrophic, yes, absolutely, perhaps that would be warranted, but these are not short emails either. These are very long personal emails with a personal attack that delve into other issues, which, you know, Mr Aarons, when I was asked for his submissions, and I heard and listened to him describe that, he resorted to as well. There are threats to call the police, there is name calling, calling you delusional, all sorts of commentary that’s being made, and other – and suggesting that other people share the view and some sort of almost rallying the troops, I should say.It is very threatening. It’s very intimidating, and it – the volume alone is harassment because it’s so unwarranted in the circumstance, and then to go to Mr Macintosh as well as the owner and repeat a lot of that information and send it to him. I mean, three or four pages long, each email, sometimes multiple on one day that I could see as I was tallying up the numbers, is quite extreme, particularly given so – nothing wrong, per se, with the apartment. These are just items that he felt needed to be repaired, and you were kind enough to entertain that and to conduct them.[...]But I am minded under – having considered section 297 but also 345, the recurrency, the frequency of the behaviour, I do think it falls within harassment. I do think it’s intimidating, I – particularly given the threats contained within those emails, and I’ve cited a few of them during the hearing today that really stood out to me that I thought were very inappropriate, and certainly stepped well over the line, and not only that, but the sheer number is just horrendous.[7]Ibid, ll 14-33, 42-47. The Adjudicator went on to say:[8]I am satisfied – in the circumstances, I think the tenancy is just not viable. I think it does fall within the definitions of objectionable behaviour, given it’s not – obviously not public or community housing, but under the sections that I’ve cited, there is a recurrent behaviour, and whilst it may not be fact to face, it is consistent and written down, and there is a lot of derogatory comments that are made and a lot of very thinly veiled threats that are made against yourself, which is – and just bombarding someone alone can – is – can be considered harassing, and I think 464 emails between that period is extreme. I think it falls within that criteria.[8]Ibid, 1-49, ll 5-12.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.