Brown v Northside First National

[2011] QCATA 119

CITATION: Brown v Northside First National [2011] QCATA 119

PARTIES:	Miss Jamie Rose Brown
v
Northside First National

APPLICATION NUMBER:            APL127-10               

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE:   On the papers

HEARD AT:   Brisbane

DECISION OF: Richard Oliver, Senior Member
Peta Stilgoe, Member

DELIVERED ON:   26 May 2011

DELIVERED AT:   Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:      Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

Residential tenancy – whether tenant liable for cost of repairing cracked glass

Procedure – where applicant applied to attend by remote conferencing – where adjudicator rang number provided four times – where applicant did not answer telephone – where application dismissed – whether grounds to reopen proceeding

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, ss 3(b), 13(1), 137(a)

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Oliver

1. In this matter the Appeal Tribunal consisted of Ms Stilgoe, QCAT Member and me.  I have had the benefit of reading her reasons in draft.  I agree with her reasons, and her conclusions, and the order she proposes.

Ms Stilgoe

1. Ms Dowd was a tenant in premises managed by Northside First National.  At the conclusion of the tenancy, Northside sought a payment of $280 from the bond to pay for a cracked pane of glass in the door of the tenancy.  Ms Brown applied to the tribunal for an order that the $280 be paid to her.  The file records that neither party attended at the hearing of Ms Brown’s application.  The learned Adjudicator dismissed the application.

1. Ms Brown appeals this decision:

a)    She made arrangements to attend the hearing by remote conference but nobody contacted her.

b)    Northside did not send her the exit condition report within the time required.

c)    She denies that the glass was cracked when she left the tenancy.

d)    Because of the time that elapsed between her leaving the tenancy and the exit condition report being completed, the cracked glass could have been caused by an unknown third party.

1. In fact, Ms Brown’s application for leave to appeal is really an application for a reopening on the basis that she did not appear at the hearing of the proceeding, s 137(a) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, and it is appropriate to determine the application on this basis.

1. Section 137(a), which defines a reopening ground, requires that the party who did not appear have a reasonable excuse for not attending the hearing. The minor civil dispute file does show Ms Brown’s application to attend the hearing by remote conferencing. The file also records that the learned Adjudicator attempted to call Ms Brown on the number she provided at 11.15 am and 11.20 am but there was no answer. When the learned Adjudicator called Ms Brown at 1.00 pm, a male person answered the phone and then hung up. The learned Adjudicator called again; the phone rang out and he was disconnected.

1. QCAT has statutory obligations…