Hobson v Grant

Case [2025] QCATA 63

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Hobson v Grant [2025] QCATA 63

PARTIES:
JULIE ANN HOBSON

(applicant/appellant)

v
STEVEN JOHN GRANT

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL139-24

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDQ1596-24 (Brisbane)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DECISION DELIVERED ON:

2 July 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Lember

ORDERS:

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL THAT:

1.     The application by the applicant for leave to rely on fresh evidence is refused.

2.     Leave to appeal is granted.

3.     The appeal is allowed.

4.     The decision in MCD Q1596-24 made 19 April 2024 (including the warrant of possession issued pursuant to it) is set aside.

5.     The application in MCD Q1596-24 is returned to the minor civil dispute jurisdiction for rehearing before a differently constituted Tribunal, with the following directions:

(a)     Evidence filed in APL193-24 will be copied by the Registry and filed as evidence in MCD Q1596-24.

(b)     Each party must file in the Tribunal and give to the other party of:

(i)        Any further evidence (documents) that they wish to rely on in the final hearing for application MCD Q1596-24, by 4pm on 6 August 2025.

(ii)      Any response evidence to the evidence filed by the other party and given to them per the above direction, by 4pm on 27 August 2025.

(c)     The application in MCD Q1596-24 will be listed for a final hearing on a date to be fixed after 31 August 2025.

(d)     Parties should be prepared in the hearing to address the Tribunal on the question of whether the respondent is a tenant of the applicant and, if it is found that she is not, whether the Tribunal’s discretion to issue a warrant should be exercised.

(e)     Each party is granted leave to be legally represented in the proceeding.  Support persons for a party are also permitted to attend the hearing.

(f)      If de facto property settlement proceedings concerning the residential premises the subject of the application have commenced, the Tribunal must be notified of the commencement of those proceedings by the later of 4pm on 20 August 2025, or if they are commenced after that date but before the hearing, the earlier of within 2 business days of the commencement of the proceedings and at the hearing.

6.     Nothing in these orders prevent the MCD applicant withdrawing the application if circumstances have changed due to the passage of time such that orders for a warrant of possession are no longer sought.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – where warrant issued upon finding that there was no tenancy agreement in place – where former de facto partner of applicant for warrant found to be occupying property without consent – where domestic and family violence orders ousted the owner from the property – where tribunal found no de facto relationship between parties  - where tenancy legislation not properly considered – where inadequate reasons given for findings – where…

Continue reading Hobson v Grant

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hobson v Grant [2025] QCATA 63
Case
[2025] QCATA 63
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hobson v Grant involved an appeal by Ms Hobson against a decision by the Tribunal below that granted a warrant of possession to Ms Grant, finding that there was no tenancy agreement in place. The dispute arose from a claim by Ms Hobson that Ms Grant was occupying her property without consent, and the Tribunal below issued a warrant of possession following a finding that there was no tenancy agreement in place. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), where the tribunal granted leave to appeal. The legal issues before the Appeal Tribunal were whether the Tribunal below had jurisdiction to make the decision, whether there was an error of law, whether there was bias or denial of procedural fairness, and whether the reasons provided for the findings were adequate. The Appeal Tribunal found that the Tribunal below had erred in law by not properly considering the tenancy legislation, and that there were inadequate reasons for the findings. The Tribunal below also failed to consider the impact of domestic and family violence orders on the parties' rights. The Appeal Tribunal held that the decision of the Tribunal below was flawed and that the appeal should be allowed. The decision in MCD Q1596-24, including the warrant of possession, was set aside, and the matter was returned to the minor civil dispute jurisdiction for rehearing before a differently constituted Tribunal. The parties were directed to file further evidence and responses by specified dates, and the final hearing was to be listed after 31 August 2025. The Tribunal was also directed to address the question of whether Ms Grant was a tenant of Ms Hobson, and if not, whether the Tribunal’s discretion to issue a warrant should be exercised. The parties were granted leave to be legally represented, and support persons were permitted to attend the hearing. If de facto property settlement proceedings concerning the residential premises had commenced, the Tribunal was to be notified by the later of 4pm on 20 August 2025, or if they were commenced after that date but before the hearing, the earlier of within 2 business days of the commencement of the proceedings and at the hearing. The orders did not prevent Ms Hobson from withdrawing the application if circumstances had changed such that orders for a warrant of possession were no longer sought.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL THAT:

1. The application by the applicant for leave to rely on fresh evidence is refused.

2. Leave to appeal is granted.

3. The appeal is allowed.

4. The decision in MCD Q1596-24 made 19 April 2024 (including the warrant of possession issued pursuant to it) is set aside.

5. The application in MCD Q1596-24 is returned to the minor civil dispute jurisdiction for rehearing before a differently constituted Tribunal, with the following directions:

(a) Evidence filed in APL193-24 will be copied by the Registry and filed as evidence in MCD Q1596-24.

(b) Each party must file in the Tribunal and give to the other party of:

(i) Any further evidence (documents) that they wish to rely on in the final hearing for application MCD Q1596-24, by 4pm on 6 August 2025.

(ii) Any response evidence to the evidence filed by the other party and given to them per the above direction, by 4pm on 27 August 2025.

(c) The application in MCD Q1596-24 will be listed for a final hearing on a date to be fixed after 31 August 2025.

(d) Parties should be prepared in the hearing to address the Tribunal on the question of whether the respondent is a tenant of the applicant and, if it is found that she is not, whether the Tribunal’s discretion to issue a warrant should be exercised.

(e) Each party is granted leave to be legally represented in the proceeding. Support persons for a party are also permitted to attend the hearing.

(f) If de facto property settlement proceedings concerning the residential premises the subject of the application have commenced, the Tribunal must be notified of the commencement of those proceedings by the later of 4pm on 20 August 2025, or if they are commenced after that date but before the hearing, the earlier of within 2 business days of the commencement of the proceedings and at the hearing.

6. Nothing in these orders prevent the MCD applicant withdrawing the application if circumstances have changed due to the passage of time such that orders for a warrant of possession are no longer sought.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Upon review of the minor civil dispute file and the hearing transcript, the Appeal Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Hobson’s application for leave can be decided on the jurisdiction ground alone, although the allegations in grounds one and two have also been considered. New evidence Before turning to the grounds of appeal, it is necessary to address the filing by Ms Hobson of evidence in this proceeding that was not before the Tribunal below. An application for leave to reply on this evidence has not been filed. In Alderton & Anor v Wide Bay Constructions Pty Ltd [2017] QCATA 147 at [7], Senior Member Howard said that:[38] Fresh evidence may be allowed in appeal proceedings that proceed by way of rehearing, but only in limited circumstances. Although I am not determining the application for leave to appeal or the appeal, I observe some relevant underlying principles. The appeal process is for correcting error made by the original decision-maker. It is not an opportunity for a party to present their case again in order to achieve a different outcome, or reargue it, merely because the party does not like or agree with the outcome/decision of the original tribunal. Where required, leave to appeal will generally only be granted when there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision; reasonable prospects of substantive relief and there is a necessity to grant leave to correct a substantial injustice.[39] The principle of finality in litigation counts against admitting fresh evidence on appeal. Parties are expected to act in their own interests and make their own case fully in the first hearing.[40] In an application for leave to rely upon fresh evidence concerning evidence that did not exist at the time of the original hearing, to succeed, an applicant must generally show as follows:(a) That the evidence could not have been available with reasonable diligence for the original hearing;(b) That if it was allowed to be relied upon it probably would have had an important impact on the result of the case; and(c) That the evidence is credible. Ms Hobson has not established that the new evidence was not available with reasonable diligence for the original hearing. As observed in Ramsay v Fraser [2024] QCATA 72 at [11] an application for leave to adduce fresh evidence is not, and should not be, an attempt to shore up the deficiencies of a party's case at the initial hearing. In any event, it will be seen that the application for leave to appeal or appeal was able to be determined without reference to new evidence. Leave to rely on the new evidence is refused for those reasons. The application came before the Tribunal below as an application for minor civil dispute – residential tenancy dispute. Section 11 of the QCAT Act confers the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over minor civil disputes. Schedule 3 of the QCAT Act includes a ‘tenancy matter’ as a minor civil dispute, namely, ‘a matter in relation to which a person may, under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008, apply to the tribunal for a decision’.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.