Du v Ina Operations Pty Ltd No.2 - [2024] QCATA 17

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Du v INA Operations Pty Ltd No.2 [2024] QCATA 17

PARTIES:

XI DU

(applicant)

INA OPERATIONS PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL027-24

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCD Q5358-23

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DECISION MADE ON:

8 February 2024

REASONS DELIVERED ON:

19 February 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lember

ORDERS:

The application to stay a decision (correction decision dated 7 February 2024) is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where a stay is sought of a decision made in the minor civil dispute jurisdiction to correct the address of a property on a decision to terminate a tenancy – where correction decision made during the currency of an application for leave to appeal or appeal – where a decision refusing to stay the termination decision predated the correction decision

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 293, s350

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 3, s 32, s 58, s 134, s 145, sch 3

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Jorgensen [2009] QCA 20

Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Day v Humphrey [2017] QCA 104
Elphick v MMI General Insurance Ltd & Anor [2002] QCA 347
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
Hessey-Tenny & Anor v Jones [2018] QCATA 131
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577
QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41

Simonova v Department of Housing and Public Works [2018] QCA 60
State of Queensland v Bell [2016] QCATA 176

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this application about?

Xi Du (‘Du’) seeks leave to appeal a decision made by the Tribunal below on 18 January 2024 to end their tenancy of site T09 at the Brisbane North Rental Village, operated by INA Operations Pty Ltd (‘INA’) (the ‘termination decision’).[1]
[1]Application for leave to appeal or appeal filed 23 January 2024.
Pending an outcome in that application, Du sought to stay the termination decision by an application that I refused on 1 February 2024.
On 7 February 2024, the Tribunal below corrected the termination decision by amending the property address referred to therein (the ‘correction decision’).
On 8 February 2024 I refused an application by Du to stay the correction decision for the reasons that follow.

Factual background

By an application in a minor civil dispute – residential tenancies dispute filed on 20 November 2023 INA applied to the Tribunal to terminate Du’s tenancy on the grounds of failure to leave under section 293 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (‘RTRAA’) and for a warrant of possession under section 350(1) of the RTRAA.
All…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Du v Ina Operations Pty Ltd No.2 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] QCATA 17
Decision Date: 19 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were Du, the appellant, and Ina Operations Pty Ltd, the respondent. The dispute involved a decision made in the minor civil dispute jurisdiction to correct the address of a property on a decision to terminate a tenancy. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The primary issue before the court was whether the appeal against the decision to terminate a tenancy should be stayed due to the subsequent correction of the property address. This correction occurred while the appellant's application for leave to appeal was pending, despite a prior decision refusing a stay of the termination decision.

The court examined the general principles concerning the grant or refusal of a stay of proceedings. The appellant argued that the correction decision, which was made after the original decision to terminate the tenancy, warranted a stay of the proceedings. However, the court noted that the refusal of a stay predated the correction decision, which meant the appellant's application for a stay was not timely. The court also considered whether the correction decision had any bearing on the merits of the appeal or if it constituted an intervening change that warranted a stay.

The Queensland Court of Appeal held that the principles of staying proceedings in such cases required the court to balance the interests of justice against the potential for unnecessary delay. Given that the refusal to stay the termination decision had already been made and the appellant's application for leave to appeal was not yet determined, the court found no grounds to interfere with the earlier decision. The court concluded that the correction of the address did not warrant a stay, as it did not affect the fundamental fairness of the original decision. Therefore, the application to stay the correction decision was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application to stay a decision (correction decision dated 7 February 2024) is refused.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.