Ingram v Sheppard
[2015] QCAT 289
•16 June 2015
PARTIES: | Ingram v Sheppard [2015] QCAT 289 Dixie Ingram | |
| v | ||
| Jason Sheppard (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDT1069-15 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Residential tenancy matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 19 May 2015 - On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: DECISION ON: DECISION AT: | Adjudicator Gordon 16 June 2015 Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | The application is struck out under section 47 of the QCAT Act 2009 as an abuse of process. |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
The tribunal heard and determined this matter on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
REASONS FOR DECISION
This application was struck out on 19 May 2015 as an abuse of process and the Applicants now ask for reasons why this order was made.
The application was presented to QCAT on 23 April 2015. It was a claim made against Jason Sheppard who was named as a tenant of premises in Nundah. It claimed rent arrears of $2,408.58 greater than the rental bond and also claimed $132 for “pest control for pets”.
Form 2 was used to bring this claim and in Part A of that form there is a section called “Respondent’s details”. This enables the Applicant to insert the address of the Respondent. This area was however left blank, apart from a mobile telephone number and an email address.
The application appeared to have been made by Rental Express acting as agents on the Applicants’ behalf. An address was given on the form for the Applicants and this was the address used by QCAT to communicate with the Applicants.
Applications on Form 2 are usually served on the Respondent by QCAT, and when doing so, QCAT sends a notice of hearing and also a copy of the application to the Respondent. In order to do this QCAT requires an address for the Respondent unless a decision has been made to serve this paperwork in a different way.
In a tenancy claim where no address is given for a party, QCAT is able under section 515 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 to ask the Residential Tenancies Authority for the address of the party and under that section the RTA is able to provide the address to QCAT. In the case of a tenant who has rented another property, sometimes the address emerges in this way.
In this application QCAT did, on 28 April 2015, ask the RTA whether there was an address for the Respondent but the RTA responded that it did not hold an address for the Respondent.
In a letter dated 29 April 2015, QCAT informed the Applicants, by their agents Rental Express, that the RTA did not hold an address for the Respondent and directed the Applicants to file with the Tribunal evidence of all reasonable inquiries to locate the Respondent pursuant to section 93 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, including
· contact details with all known addresses, email, text, social media
· notices given to next of kin, emergency contacts
· notices to place of work
· internet search, telephone directory search or any other valid method to satisfy the tribunal that the Respondent has notice of the claim
· proof of every such item of contact or notice to be attached in writing to a statement of the person making the contact.
The Applicants were directed to lodge this evidence by 4pm on 13 May 2015. The Applicants were informed that whether or not submissions were received the matter would be considered by the Tribunal on 15 May 2015.
The Applicants did not provide this information by 13 May 2015 or at all.
The information required by the direction made on 29 April 2015 is required by QCAT to decide under section 93 of the QCAT Act 2009 whether a person cannot be found after reasonable inquiries have been made. If this is the case, QCAT in its discretion can proceed to hear the matter.
Since this information was not provided by the Applicants, QCAT had little choice but to strike out the application as an abuse of process. This was because QCAT was unable to serve the application on the Respondent and it had insufficient information to decide whether or not it was right to proceed to hear the matter under section 93 or to decide whether some other form of service on the Respondent was appropriate.
0
0
0