Cephas Kaunda Lumina v Runcorn Townhouse Rentals

[2000] QCA 231

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
THOMAS JA
DUTNEY J

No 3696 of 2000

CEPHAS KAUNDA LUMINA AND
CHIMBA DOROTHY LUMINA Applicants (Applicants)

and

RUNCORN TOWNHOUSE
RENTALS First Respondent (First Respondent)

and

TENANCY INFORMATION
CENTRE AUSTRALASIA
HOLDINGS PTY LTD Second Respondent (Second Respondent)

BRISBANE

..DATE 14/06/2000

JUDGMENT

PINCUS JA: It is now just over half an hour past the advertised time for commencement. Mr Lumina has not appeared, nor has Mrs Lumina. The associates have had a search for them in places where they might be within the Court building and have been unable to find them, and therefore we have decided to determine the matter without the benefit of any submissions by Mr or Mrs Lumina.

I have had the opportunity of studying the papers which have been filed and I have also taken the liberty of looking through the District Court file to examine the history of the matters in greater detail. I notice that it is one in which there have been quite a number of applications made; I think about nine or 10 up to this stage.

The applicant seeks principally to have leave to renew an application for leave to appeal and also seeks an extension of time for seeking leave to appeal and to appeal. The application for an extension of time relates to judgments given in the District Court by her Honour Judge Holmes, then an Acting District Court Judge, and by her Honour Judge Wolfe, the Chief District Court Judge, both of those decisions having been given last year.

My view of the matter, having spent some time looking at the papers, is that applications made in this case have no reasonable prospect of success and should be dismissed.

I would add that the whole series of cases, which have been stimulated by a dispute between Mr and Mrs Lumina and their landlord, is in the highest degree unfortunate. It appears that initially there was some uncertainty in the minds of Mr and Mrs Lumina as to how much rental was due to the landlord and they, I gather grudgingly, accepted the landlord's view of that. From that small dispute, there has arisen a series of applications in this Court and in the District Court, mostly in the latter, which have been very expensive for the Luminas because they have had a number of orders for costs made against them and the material discloses that their financial position is very bad.

It appears to me that Mr and Mrs Lumina would be well advised to try to ensure that they do not make any further applications to the Courts which are not properly conceived and really worth bringing. If I could take one example of one that was not properly conceived, it seems clear that
Mr and Mrs Lumina have made an application to the District Court in respect of a matter in which, as they now concede, the District Court had no jurisdiction.

I mention that merely as an example of a case which plainly should not have been brought, particularly as I understand Mr Lumina has some high legal qualifications.

To return to the main point, however, my view is that the applications which have been made by the papers before us today are without substance and I would dismiss them.

THOMAS JA: I agree. I also have studied the material. The application before us is described as an ex parte application for leave to appeal, an extension of time for appealing and to stay execution.

I can find no basis or material upon which the application could succeed. I share the concerns mentioned by Mr Justice Pincus. The order that should be made in the circumstances is that the application is dismissed.

DUTNEY J: I agree. I only wish to add that in relation to the stay of execution which is also contained in the application, quite apart from the lack of apparent merit in the proposed appeal, the affidavit does not raise any arguable case which would justify the grant of such a stay.
It is not suggested that the respondents would have been unable to repay any amount paid even if the appeal had been permitted to proceed and otherwise had merit. I otherwise agree with the orders proposed.

PINCUS JA: The order of the Court is application dismissed with costs.

...

PINCUS JA: The order will have to speak for itself.

-----

In the case of Cephas Kaunda Lumina v Runcorn Townhouse Rentals, the applicants, Cephas Kaunda Lumina and Chimba Dorothy Lumina, sought leave to renew an application for leave to appeal, an extension of time for seeking leave to appeal, and an extension of time to appeal. The respondents were Runcorn Townhouse Rentals and Tenancy Information Centre Australasia Holdings Pty Ltd. The case arose from a series of disputes between the tenants and their landlord regarding rental payments, which escalated into multiple court applications. The Court of Appeal found that the applicants' applications lacked merit and dismissed them, highlighting the unfruitful nature of the ongoing litigation.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the applicants had a reasonable prospect of success in their applications for leave to appeal and an extension of time, as well as whether a stay of execution should be granted pending the appeal. The Court considered the history of the litigation, noting the significant costs incurred by the applicants and the apparent lack of merit in their applications. The applicants had made numerous applications to both the Court of Appeal and the District Court, many of which were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or merit.

The Court of Appeal, led by Pincus JA, found that the applicants' applications had no reasonable prospect of success. The judges expressed concern over the series of applications, which had become costly and detrimental to the applicants' financial situation. They also noted that some of the applications were improperly conceived, particularly given the applicants' legal qualifications. The Court dismissed the applications, emphasising the need for the applicants to refrain from making further applications that lacked merit. The Court also noted the lack of an arguable case for a stay of execution, as the applicants did not demonstrate that the respondents would be unable to repay any amounts paid if the appeal were to proceed and succeed.

The final order of the Court of Appeal was that the applications were dismissed, with costs awarded against the applicants. The judges agreed that the applications lacked merit and did not warrant further consideration. The dismissal of the applications was intended to prevent further fruitless litigation and to encourage the applicants to focus on resolving the underlying dispute with their landlord.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established