Hoban v Zhang - [2025] QCATA 103

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Hoban v Zhang [2025] QCATA 103

PARTIES:

CHARLES HOBAN

(appellant)

v

LUWEN ZHANG

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL310-24

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

ADL073-22

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

7 November 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers hearing

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Roney KC

ORDERS:

1.     The appeal is dismissed.

2.     The appellant Charles Hoban is to vacate his tenancy at Unit 15, 542 Lower Bowen Terrace, New Farm within 28 days of the date of the making of these orders.

3.     I grant the parties liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders which might be required to be made.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEALS – ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – vilification and racial discrimination – scope of powers to grant injunctive type relief to require a vilifying co-tenant to vacate premises shared with the victim

PROCEDURE — state and territory courts: jurisdiction, powers and generally — inherent and general statutory powers to scope of powers of tribunal to grant an injunction

HUMAN RIGHTS — right and freedom to choose where to live — where purpose of the limitation here was and is to protect the safety and human rights of the respondent to effective protection against discrimination and vilification

Anti-discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 122, s 124A, s 209

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), s 63
Housing Act 2003 (Qld)
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 19

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 59, s 143, s 164

Coop v State of Queensland [2013] QCAT 263

Fitz-Gibbon & Park v Liu [2022] QCAT 259
Le Roy v Brisbane City Council [2025] QCAT 314
Molesworth v Campbell and Patcono Pty Ltd [2004] QADT 30
Owen v Menzies [2013] 2 Qd R 327
Ritson v Ryan [2023] QCATA 86
Sandy v Queensland Human Rights Commissioner (2022) 12 QR 556
Taniela v Australian Christian College Moreton Ltd [2020] QCAT 249

Wilson v Stevens [2024] QCAT 471

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)

REASONS FOR DECISION

The appellant and the respondent are both tenants in the same community housing facility in New Farm in Brisbane. The building is owned by Bric Housing, a nationally registered community housing provider pursuant to the National Regulatory System for Community Housing, implemented through the Housing Act 2003 (Qld) (‘the Housing Act’). The State of Queensland has made registration a condition of funding for social housing services under the Housing Act. This purports to operate to support the development of a social housing industry, and ensure that the regulatory protections for tenants and assets apply to all publicly-funded social housing services. This social housing is evidently designed for persons on low incomes and who may be otherwise disadvantaged.
The respondent alleged that over a ten-year period she has been subjected to racial vilification, assault, theft, abusive language and aggression by the appellant. She alleged that he spread false…

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 Hoban v Zhang

Details

AGLC: Hoban v Zhang [2025] QCATA 103
Case: [2025] QCATA 103
Decision Date: 7 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hoban v Zhang, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was asked to consider an appeal by the appellant, Charles Hoban, against a decision that required him to vacate the premises he shared with the respondent, Zhang. The underlying dispute involved allegations of racial discrimination and vilification by Hoban towards Zhang, who is his co-tenant. The tribunal had found Hoban guilty of engaging in conduct that constituted racial discrimination and vilification under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) and ordered him to vacate the premises. The central legal issues before the court were whether the QCAT had the inherent and statutory powers to grant an injunction requiring Hoban to vacate the premises and whether the order to vacate was justified under the circumstances.

The court considered whether QCAT had the requisite powers to grant an injunction of this nature and whether the order to vacate was appropriate in light of the need to protect Zhang's safety and human rights. It held that the QCAT did have the inherent and statutory powers to grant such an injunction, as the purpose of the limitation on Hoban's rights was to protect Zhang's rights to live free from discrimination and vilification. The court also found that the order to vacate was justified because it was necessary to prevent further vilification and to provide Zhang with effective protection against discrimination.

The appeal was dismissed, and the court confirmed that Hoban must vacate his tenancy at Unit 15, 542 Lower Bowen Terrace, New Farm within 28 days of the date of the making of these orders. The court granted the parties liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders which might be required to be made. This decision underscores the importance of protecting individuals from racial discrimination and vilification and the tribunal's authority to take necessary action to enforce these protections.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant Charles Hoban is to vacate his tenancy at Unit 15, 542 Lower Bowen Terrace, New Farm within 28 days of the date of the making of these orders.

3. I grant the parties liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders which might be required to be made.

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.