Freshwater Point Management v Reeder
[2014] QCAT 584
•19 November 2014
| CITATION: | Freshwater Point Management v Reeder [2014] QCAT 584 |
| PARTIES: | Freshwater Point Management Mr Gavin Phillis as Representative (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Stuart Reeder (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDT51-10 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Residential tenancy matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 4 November 2014 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Adjudicator Bertelsen |
| DELIVERED ON: | 19 November 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | The application to renew the decision of 2 February 2010 is refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Final decision – renewal of final decision – substitution of applicant – enforceability of final decision – time within renewal application to be made – evidence of non enforceability of final decision |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Jane Lacy |
| RESPONDENT: | No appearance |
REASONS FOR DECISION
By application for miscellaneous matters filed 15 September 2014 the applicant Jane Lacy (Ms Lacy) seeks renewal of the Tribunal’s decision of 2 February 2010 wherein Freshwater Point Management (FPM) as applicant was granted a termination order against Stuart Reeder as respondent and whereby Stuart Reeder was ordered to pay FPM the sum of $6,538.00 being rental arrears offset by $2,240.00 rental bond applied in partial satisfaction of that sum. Ms Lacy seeks substitution of herself as applicant in lieu of FPM.
Ms Lacy stated that she was at the time of the initiating application and still is the owner of the unit the subject of the termination and monetary orders of 2 February 2010; that she should have been the applicant at the time; that she cannot enforce the monetary decision as it stands; that her substitution as an applicant will enable her to enforce the decision of 2 February 2010; that otherwise the decision of 2 February 2010 is of no utility.
Section 133 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 provides that if there are problems interpreting, implementing or enforcing the Tribunal’s final decision then a party may apply to the Tribunal for a renewal of the decision (here the decision of 2 February 2010).
Any such application must be made in the approved form and within 28 days of the relevant day.
A relevant day is defined in the dictionary to the QCAT Rules for the purposes of Rule 89, as meaning
a) If the party making the application has requested written reasons for the decision under s 122 of the QCAT Act the day the party has given the written reasons (not relevant here); or
b) Otherwise – the day the party is given notice of the decision.
Therefore here the original applicant FPM had 28 days after notification of the decision of 2 February 2010 or alternatively Ms Lacy had 28 days to make the application to the Tribunal for renewal of the decision of 2 February 2010.
In terms of the QCAT Act and Rules it is not competent for Ms Lacy to apply more than 4 years after the event to renew the decision by substituting herself as applicant.
Finally on 17 September 2014 the Tribunal directed Ms Lacy file in the Tribunal documents relied on for the assertion that the decision cannot be enforced. Rather it appears material provided by Ms Lacy is simply directed to her ownership of the unit and her intention to pursue monies owing. There is nothing in the material submitted that supports non enforceability of the decision of 2 February 2010 as it stands.
The application to renew the claim of 2 February 2010 is refused.
0
0
0