Farren v The Agency - [2024] QCATA 50

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

FARREN V THE AGENCY [2024] QCATA 50

PARTIES:

JEANETTE FARREN

(applicant)

V

THE AGENCY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL023-24

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDQ963-23

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

2 May 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lember

ORDERS:

1. The application for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal or appeal (filed informally by way of email on 29 February 2024) is refused.

2. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal or appeal filed 18 January 2024 is dismissed because it was filed out of time.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – EXTENSION OF TIME – where application for leave to appeal filed out of time – whether time should be extended

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 3, s 32, s 47, s 61, s 122, s 135, s 138, s 139, s 143

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 94, s 416, s 419, s 420

Barker v Wingo 407 U.S. 514 (1972)

Body Corporate for No 9 Port Douglas Road v McEvoy [2011] QCATA 292
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1986) 186 CLR 541
Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman [2011] QCAT 229

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) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this decision about?

On 27 February 2022, Ms Farren says the property she occupied as a tenant became inaccessible and was deprived of essential services such as electricity, gas and water due to flooding. Photographs and emails filed in evidence establish that this was indeed the case.
She brought a claim for rental credits and compensation for alternative accommodation, medical expenses she says are attributable to health issues arising from mould exposure and other items. Ms Farren says she was not offered rental credits and repairs were not undertaken by the lessor, represented by The Agency, in breach of her tenancy agreement and the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (RTRAA).
By a decision made in MCDQ963-23 on 8 September 2023 Ms Farren’s claim was dismissed by the Tribunal below (the Dismissal Decision). By a decision made 19 October 2023 her subsequent application to correct that decision was also refused (the Correction Decision).
Ms Farren applied out of time for leave to appeal or appeal the Correction Decision. By a decision made 8 April 2024 her application to extend time was refused, for the reasons that now follow.

Chronology

The tenancy dispute arose and then proceeded through the Tribunal as follows:

27 February 2022

Flooding event leading to water inundation at the property. In the months following various trades attended for repair/replacement of damaged items.

19 May 2022

Ms Farren issues a Form 11 Notice to Remedy Breach for repairs/property condition, to be remedied by 17 June 2022.

20 May 2022

Ms…

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 Farren v The Agency 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 50
Decision Date: 2 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Farren v The Agency, the appellant sought to appeal a decision made by a lower court. The dispute centred on the appellant's application for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal, which was not submitted within the prescribed time frame. The respondent argued that the appellant's application for leave to appeal or appeal, filed informally by way of email on 29 February 2024, was out of time, and thus, the appeal should not proceed. The court was tasked with determining whether the appellant's application for an extension of time should be granted, and consequently, whether the application for leave to appeal or appeal should be dismissed for being filed out of time.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's application for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal should be granted, and if so, whether the application for leave to appeal or appeal should proceed despite being filed out of time. The court had to consider the applicable rules and principles regarding the extension of time for filing such applications, as well as the precedents that might guide the decision.

The court found that the appellant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal or appeal. The appellant's informal filing of the application by way of email on 29 February 2024 did not meet the formal requirements for such applications, and the court was not persuaded that an extension of time was warranted. Consequently, the court refused the application for an extension of time, and the application for leave to appeal or appeal filed on 18 January 2024 was dismissed for being out of time. The court's reasoning was grounded in the strict adherence to the time limits set out in the rules, and the absence of any exceptional circumstances that would warrant an extension.

Accordingly, the court's final orders were that the application for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal or appeal was refused, and the application for leave to appeal or appeal filed on 18 January 2024 was dismissed because it was filed out of time.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal or appeal (filed informally by way of email on 29 February 2024) is refused.

2. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal or appeal filed 18 January 2024 is dismissed because it was filed out of time.

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.

27 February 2022	Flooding event leading to water inundation at the property. In the months following various trades attended for repair/replacement of damaged items.
19 May 2022	Ms Farren issues a Form 11 Notice to Remedy Breach for repairs/property condition, to be remedied by 17 June 2022.
20 May 2022	Ms…