Gallon & Gallon v AH Realty

[2016] QCATA 62

CITATION: Gallon & Gallon v AH Realty [2016] QCATA 062

PARTIES	Nicole Gallon & David Gallon (Applicant/Appellant) v AH Realty (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:		APL 497-15

MATTER TYPE: Minor Civil Dispute

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Justice Carmody

DELIVERED ON: 9 June 2016

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1.    Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where the applicant was ordered to pay an amount in order to be released from her bond – whether the Tribunal erred in fact or law – whether the applicant was afforded procedural fairness – where the applicant declined to file submissions in support of her appeal

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers without the attendance of either party in accordance with s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The applicants seek leave to appeal the decision of a Magistrate in Moranbah, sitting as the Tribunal, ordering them to pay the respondents the amount of $5,656.16 (or $4,456.16 when the bond was released) so they could be released from their bond. The applicants brought the minor civil dispute claim on the grounds that Ms Gallon was experiencing excessive hardship.

2. In the application, the applicants allege that (a) the Magistrate’s decision was biased and (b) that Ms Gallon was not afforded procedural fairness as she was not allowed to fully present her case or properly object.

3. The applicants were directed to file submissions detailing the alleged errors of law and/or fact relied on, but declined to do so.

4. Having read the transcript, I see nothing close to resembling evidence of bias or a failure to afford the applicants a fair hearing.

5. I cannot meaningfully decide whether the Magistrate’s decision was demonstrably wrong in law or fact (the threshold for appeals in this Tribunal) unless the applicants provide the evidence or other material that specifically identifies where the Magistrate allegedly erred in awarding the respondents the amount she did.

6. I infer from her failure to file submissions that the applicants have changed their minds about appealing and no longer want to pursue the matter.

7. Therefore, leave to appeal is refused as a matter of discretion.