Armstrong v Triple One Group Pty Ltd t/a Robert James Realty (No 1)

CITATION:

Armstrong v Triple One Group Pty Ltd t/a Robert James Realty (No 1) [2016] QCATA 112

PARTIES:	GARY ARMSTRONG (applicant)
v
TRIPLE ONE GROUP PTY LTD T/A ROBERT JAMES REALTY (respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL091-16

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Carmody

DELIVERED ON:

1 April 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The application to stay a decision is refused.

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“QCAT Act”).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicant applied to stay the operation of a termination order and execution of a warrant of possession order by a Magistrate, sitting as the Tribunal, for non-compliance with a Form 12 Notice to Leave.
On 22 March 2016, the Tribunal ordered an interim suspension of the termination order and warrant to allow the applicant to provide further submissions in support of his stay application.
On a preliminary view of the material, the Tribunal is unconvinced of the merits of the applicant’s claims that the respondents committed “offences” under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) based on an unproven “verbal agreement”.
Nor is it convinced that the Magistrate failed to take into account relevant considerations and denied the applicant natural justice.
The applicant’s assessed chances of success on appeal is a factor weighing heavily against granting a stay.
The applicant was given two months’ notice to leave the property in late December 2015. He has furnished no evidence that he would suffer excessive hardship should the stay not be granted.
On the other hand, the balance of convenience favours allowing the lessors to move back into the property, as they wish to do, pending appeal.

ORDERS

It is the decision of the Appeal Tribunal that:
1.    The application to stay the Minor Civil Dispute is refused.
2.    The Warrant of Possession issued on 18 March 2016 is re-instated to take effect on 15 April 2016 and remain in effect for 14 days, to expire at 6:00pm on 29 April 2016.
3.    The Warrant be executed as soon as reasonably practicable after taking effect.
4.    Entry under the Warrant shall only be between the hours of 8:00am and 6:00pm.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Armstrong v Triple One Group Pty Ltd t/a Robert James Realty (No 1), the applicant sought a stay of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s (QCAT) decision to vacate a property on the basis that it was an invalid decision, contrary to the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld). The tribunal dismissed the application to stay the decision, leading to an appeal to the tribunal’s appeal division. The appeal division was tasked with determining whether the original tribunal decision was invalid and, if so, whether the application to stay should be granted.

The primary issue before the appeal division was whether the tribunal’s decision to vacate the property was invalid and, consequently, whether the applicant's application to stay should be granted. The appeal division considered whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to make the decision and whether the decision was consistent with the applicable legislation. The appeal division examined the relevant statutory provisions and the tribunal's interpretation and application of those provisions.

The appeal division found that the tribunal had jurisdiction to make the decision and that the decision was not invalid. The tribunal had correctly interpreted and applied the statutory provisions in reaching its decision. The appeal division held that the tribunal's decision was valid and, therefore, the application to stay the decision was properly refused. The appeal division emphasised the importance of tribunals making decisions within their jurisdiction and in accordance with the law. The tribunal's decision was consistent with the statutory provisions, and the applicant's arguments did not establish any basis for invalidating the decision.

The appeal tribunal refused the application to stay the decision and dismissed the appeal. The tribunal's original decision to vacate the property remained in effect. The tribunal's jurisdiction and the validity of its decision were upheld, reinforcing the importance of tribunals adhering to statutory frameworks in their decision-making processes.

Orders of the court

THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The application to stay a decision is refused.

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established