George v MMG Ltd - [2016] QCATA 14

CITATION:

George v MMG Ltd [2016] QCATA 14

PARTIES:	Francine George (Applicant/Appellant)
v
MMG Limited (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:		APL319-15

MATTER TYPE:

Application and Appeals

HEARING DATE:

20 January 2016

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Carmody

DELIVERED ON:

22 January 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for leave to appeal in APL319-15 is struck out.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – where the applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision of a Magistrate to issue a termination order and warrant of possession in respect of the residential dwelling occupied by the applicant – where the applicant claimed that the original application was part of a “broader dispute” between the GADC and the respondent – whether the application for leave to appeal should be struck out.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), ss 32, 139

Blair v Harbrew Pty Ltd [2013] QCATA 19
Maffey v Mueller (unreported, Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeal Tribunal, APL077-15, 22 January 2016, Carmody J)

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This application for miscellaneous matters was determined on the papers under s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“QCAT Act”).

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is an application for miscellaneous matters, filed by the respondent on 13 October 2015, to strike out the application for leave to appeal, filed by the applicant on 12 August 2015, against a decision of Magistrate Osborne, on 10 August 2015, to issue a termination order and warrant of possession.
The applicant states the following in her application for leave to appeal:
Due to mix up in date I turned up at the Normanton Court house today Tuesday 10/08/2015, I was sick on Monday with flu/sore throat and could not speak (can be clarified by Lawyer as I spoke to him about this hearing).
I reside at 40 Riverview Drive BUT we use this address for the Gulf Aboriginal Development Company (GADC) office.
GADC is in a contractual agreement with MMG Limited as part of an Agreement with the Century Mines Project known as the Gulf Communities Agreement (GCA).
I am appealing as this is only part of a bigger Dispute with MMG and we the GADC through our representatives took a proposal to Melbourne Head Office to discuss with MMG CEO Andrew Michelmore on our concerns and in that proposal this address was included.
The applicant seeks the following orders:
I (as myself and representing GADC) is seeking the tribunal to allow us to have face to face meeting with MMG whether it is through the QCAT process or other, we the GADC is placing a DISPUTE NOTICE on MMG in the next few days drawn up by our Lawyer and Barrister, this will include proposal we took to Melbourne which includes this residence.
On behalf of myself and GADC we are seeking appeal on decision for MMG to take back possession of 40 Riverview Drive, that QCAT allow Appeal process and give…

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 George v MMG Ltd

Details

AGLC: George v MMG Ltd [2016] QCATA 14
Case: [2016] QCATA 14
Decision Date: 22 January 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of George v MMG Ltd involved an applicant seeking leave to appeal a decision made by a Magistrate to issue a termination order and a warrant of possession concerning a residential property they occupied. The applicant argued that the original application was part of a broader dispute between the GADC and the respondent. The primary legal issue the court needed to determine was whether the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the applicant's request for leave to appeal. It noted that the applicant had previously made an application to vacate a termination order and a warrant of possession. The court considered whether the application for leave to appeal was merely an extension of the earlier proceedings or if it had independent merit. The applicant claimed that the appeal was necessary to address the broader dispute, but the court found that the application did not present a new or substantially different legal argument. Consequently, the court concluded that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed as it did not meet the criteria for an appeal.

After thorough consideration of the arguments presented, the court determined that the application for leave to appeal should be struck out. The decision was based on the finding that the applicant had not demonstrated that the appeal had any realistic prospect of success or that it raised a significant issue of law. The court also noted that the applicant had not provided any new evidence or arguments that warranted reconsideration of the earlier decision. Therefore, the appeal tribunal ordered that the application for leave to appeal in APL319-15 be struck out.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for leave to appeal in APL319-15 is struck out.

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.