Bright v Blair Athol Accommodation and Support Programme

[2012] QCATA 126

CITATION: Bright v Blair Athol Accommodation and Support Programme [2012] QCATA 126

PARTIES:	Tracey Bright (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Blair Athol Accommodation and Support Programme (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL370-11

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: R Oliver, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 26 July 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

Residential Tenancy – where the applicant failed to pay rent – where no error

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, s 142(3)

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Blair Athol Accommodation and Support Programme provides emergency accommodation for homeless people.  In December 2011 it provided emergency accommodation to the applicant.  The rent for the accommodation was $215.75 for a furnished house in Tugan.

1. By June 2011 the applicant stopped paying the rent and by the date of the hearing on 19 October 2011 they were in arrears in the sum of $6,868.72.  Despite efforts to have the tenants pay the rent, Blair Athol was left with no choice but to issue all the necessary notices under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 to terminate the tenancy.  It then filed an application in the Tribunal in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction seeking a warrant for possession and an order that the arrears of rent, together with the filing fees be paid.

1. On the day of the hearing, there was no appearance by the applicant but Mr Smith, a co tenant, appeared at the court house but refused to go into the hearing room when invited to do so.  The application was heard in the absence of Ms Bright and Mr Smith.

1. The learned Adjudicator took sworn evidence from Blair Athol’s representative and satisfied herself that the requirements of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 had been complied with and made an order terminating the tenancy and issuing a warrant for possession.  She also made an order that the respondents to that application, Ms Linsley (aka Bright) and Mr Smith pay $6,960.72 to Blair Athol.

1. From that decision Ms Bright only has filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal.  Leave to appeal is necessary as this is an appeal from the minor civil disputes jurisdiction.[1]

   [1] QCAT Act, section 142(3).

1. Leave to appeal will only be granted where there is some question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage; or, there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision and a reasonable prospect that the applicant would obtain further substantive relief.  Another question sometimes asked is: is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant, caused by some error?

1. In the submissions filed in support of the appeal, and those attached to the application, Ms Bright does not attempt to identify any error on the part of the learned Adjudicator in making the decision to make the termination order and order the arrears of rent be paid.  The submissions set out a history of the association between the applicant and Blair Athol and are critical of the way the organisation operates.  None of the submissions address the fundamental issues that are necessary to enliven the Appeal Tribunal’s discretion to grant leave to appeal.  The matters raised are all those types of evidentiary matters that should have been raised at the original hearing before the minor civil disputes jurisdiction.  Mr Smith who was at the hearing chose not to avail himself of that opportunity. 

1. I have considered the evidence that was before the learned Adjudicator and can say that no error is discernable from that evidence despite the inadequacies in the applicant’s submissions.

1. No grounds have been made out which would warrant a grant of leave and therefore it is refused.