Hegyesi v Body Corporate for Aloha - [2024] QCATA 76

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Hegyesi v Body Corporate for Aloha [2024] QCATA 76

PARTIES:

ISTVAN HEGYESI

(applicant/appellant)

v

BODY CORPORATE FOR ALOHA CTS 11451

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL192-22

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

0199-2022

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

12 July 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Aughterson

ORDERS:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – OTHER CASES – body corporate and community management – where adjudicator ordered appellant to return property of the respondent – whether denial of procedural fairness – whether adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the order – whether time bar to respondent’s application – whether equitable estoppel – whether error of law in findings of fact

Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), s 149B, s 224, s 229, s 289

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 12

Aloha [2022] QBCCMCmr 189
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Firmware Technologies Inc v Asia Platinum Group Ltd (2016) 50 WAR 453
International Finance Trust Co Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission (2009) 240 CLR 319
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1

Rowe v Stoltze (2013) 45 WAR 116

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is an appeal from a decision of an adjudicator pursuant to s 289 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (‘BCCM Act’). By s 289(2) of the BCCM Act, any appeal is confined to a question of law.
The question before the adjudicator was whether, pursuant to s 224 of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020 (Qld) (‘the Regulation’), the appellant was required to comply with a body corporate request to return body corporate property; namely, master keys for scheme land. The adjudicator found that the keys were the property of the body corporate for the purposes of s 224 of the Regulation, the keys were in the possession or control of the appellant, the body corporate served the appellant with a prescribed notice in accordance with s 224(1)(c) of the Regulation (‘the prescribed notice’), and the appellant failed to comply with the statutory obligation arising in relation to the prescribed notice. Accordingly, the appellant was ordered to return the keys within seven days of the date of the order.
The grounds of appeal as set out in the submissions of the appellant may be summarised as follows:
(a)There was a denial of procedural fairness.
(b)The adjudicator did not have jurisdiction because the originating dispute is a complex dispute.
(c)There was time bar to the bringing of the application for return of the keys.
(d)An…

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 Hegyesi v Body Corporate for Aloha 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 76
Decision Date: 12 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hegyesi v Body Corporate for Aloha, the appeal was brought before the court by the appellant, Hegyesi, against the decision of an adjudicator. The dispute revolves around the property of the respondent, Body Corporate for Aloha, which was ordered to be returned by the adjudicator. The legal issues before the court included whether the adjudicator denied procedural fairness, whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the order, whether there was a time bar to the respondent's application, whether equitable estoppel applied, and whether there was an error of law in the adjudicator's findings of fact.

The court considered each of these issues in turn. The court found that there was no denial of procedural fairness as the adjudicator followed due process. The court also found that the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the order as it fell within their scope of authority. Regarding the time bar to the respondent's application, the court found that the application was not time-barred. The court also found that there was no evidence of an estoppel as there was no agreement or promise made by the respondent. Finally, the court found that there was no error of law in the adjudicator's findings of fact as they were open to the adjudicator based on the available material.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal brought by the appellant, Hegyesi, and upheld the decision of the adjudicator. The appeal is dismissed, and the decision of the adjudicator stands. The court found that the adjudicator followed due process and had jurisdiction to make the order. There was no time bar to the respondent's application, and there was no evidence of an estoppel. Finally, the court found that there was no error of law in the adjudicator's findings of fact.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

However, in those circumstances there is no agreement between the parties or promise made by the respondent such that might give rise to an estoppel. This ground of appeal is rejected.Evidence The final ground of appeal is that the respondent made misleading submissions and brought false and fabricated evidence. There are also allegations of misrepresentation, of making false allegations against the appellant and of defamation. The allegations are extensive and occupy several pages of the submissions. It is difficult to relate the allegations to the issues before the adjudicator, other than the general assertion that the evidence of the respondent was false. In making findings of fact in relation to the central issues in this matter, the adjudicator accepted the evidence of the respondent. On the available material, it was open to the adjudicator to do so. No error of law arises and this ground of appeal also is rejected. The appeal is dismissed.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.