Egan v Stanley - [2025] QCATA 102

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Egan v Stanley [2025] QCATA 102

PARTIES:

PRUE EGAN

(applicant)

v

MARK STANLEY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL308-24

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCD Q4432-24 (Brisbane)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

27 October 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Lember

ORDERS:

DECISION:

1.     Leave to appeal is granted.

2.     The appeal is allowed.

3.     The decision made in MCD Q4432-24 on 26 September 2024 is set aside and substituted with a decision that:

The application of the respondent filed on 9 September 2024 for leave to be represented by John Egan in the proceeding is granted.

DIRECTIONS:

1. Each party is directed to file in the Tribunal on MCD Q4432-24, and give a copy to each other party, of any further evidence that it wishes to rely upon at the final hearing, by no later than 17 November 2025.

2. The tenancy dispute is listed for a final hearing on the earliest date to be fixed, not before 24 November 2025.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – where application for termination of a residential tenancy dispute – where tenant applied for leave to be represented by her father in the proceeding – where representative was not a legal practitioner - where decision refusing leave to be legally represented made in error where such leave was not sought

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32, s 43, s 143, s 147

Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232

Colonial Bank of Australasia v Willan (1874) LR 5 PC 417, 40-42
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499
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

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?

Ms Egan is the former tenant of Mr Stanley, who, by an application for minor civil dispute – residential tenancy dispute filed 21 June 2024 sought orders claiming the bond held by the Residential Tenancies Authority for the tenancy as well as compensation for various claims arising from the condition in which Ms Egan is alleged to have left the property when her tenancy ended.
On 9 September 2024, Ms Egan filed an application for leave to have her father, Mr Egan, represent her in the tenancy proceedings. He had, her application said, represented her in the Residential Tenancies Authority dispute resolution processes that preceded the tenancy application being brought, was not a legal practitioner and was present when the property was being exited.
By a decision made 26 September 2024, a Tribunal Adjudicator refused Ms Egan’s application “to have legal representation at the…

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.

Continue reading Egan v Stanley

Details

AGLC: Egan v Stanley [2025] QCATA 102
Case: [2025] QCATA 102
Decision Date: 27 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Egan v Stanley involves a dispute over a residential tenancy, specifically regarding the right to be represented in the proceedings. The appellant, Stanley, sought to challenge a decision made in the Magistrates Court of Queensland, which refused her application to be represented by her father, John Egan, in the residential tenancy dispute. The respondent, Egan, filed an application for leave to be represented by his daughter, which was initially denied by the court because Egan was not a legal practitioner. The appellant argued that the court erred in denying the application for leave to be represented without considering the statutory provisions allowing for such representation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrates Court had correctly exercised its discretion in denying the application for leave to be represented. The appellant contended that the court had failed to consider the statutory provisions that permit a party to be represented by a person other than a legal practitioner in residential tenancy disputes. The court had to determine whether the error in the decision-making process constituted a material error of law that warranted setting aside the original decision and allowing the appeal.

In granting the appeal and allowing it, the court found that the Magistrates Court had indeed made an error of law by not considering the statutory provisions that allowed for representation by a non-legal practitioner. The court held that the decision to deny the application for leave to be represented was made without proper consideration of the relevant statutory provisions, which was a material error of law. Consequently, the decision made in MCD Q4432-24 on 26 September 2024 was set aside, and the court substituted its decision by granting the application for leave to be represented. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent's application for leave to be represented by John Egan was granted.

Orders

Orders of the court

DECISION:

1. Leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal is allowed.

3. The decision made in MCD Q4432-24 on 26 September 2024 is set aside and substituted with a decision that:

The application of the respondent filed on 9 September 2024 for leave to be represented by John Egan in the proceeding is granted.

DIRECTIONS:

1. Each party is directed to file in the Tribunal on MCD Q4432-24, and give a copy to each other party, of any further evidence that it wishes to rely upon at the final hearing, by no later than 17 November 2025.

2. The tenancy dispute is listed for a final hearing on the earliest date to be fixed, not before 24 November 2025.

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.