Jeilles v Greaves

[2012] QCATA 62

CITATION: Jeilles v Greaves [2012] QCATA 62

PARTIES:	Marilyn Jeilles (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Rosina Greaves (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL424-11

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Richard Oliver, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 16 April 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

Minor Civil Dispute – where no error identified – where applicant sought a rehearing

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, s 142(3)

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 20 October 2011 the Tribunal, sitting in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction, made a decision that Ms Jeilles should pay to Ms Greaves the sum of $708.43 by way of compensation as a consequence of her occupation of a rental property at Unit 32, Augusta Terraces, Kooralbyn.  The tenancy agreement commenced on 6 March 2008 for a fixed term.

1. From that decision, Ms Jeilles has filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal.  Leave to appeal, or permission, is required by the Appeal Tribunal as this is an appeal from the minor civil disputes jurisdiction.[1]  An appeal is not as of right.

[1] QCAT Act, s 142(3).

1. For her appeal to succeed, Ms Jeilles must identify some error on the part of the learned Adjudicator in coming to the final decision, or establish that there has been a substantial injustice.

1. The grounds of appeal set out in her application filed on 18 November 2011 are unhelpful in this regard.  Ms Jeilles makes complaint about the hearing process but does not attempt to identify any error of law on the part of the learned Adjudicator.  This is compounded by the relief sought by Ms Jeilles in that she wants a rehearing of all the matters there were originally before the Tribunal.  She also makes reference to complaints to the Anti-Discrimination Commission.

1. It is a common feature of appeals from the minor civil dispute jurisdiction that the appellants misunderstand the appeal process and generally believe that the Appeal Tribunal will rehear the application mainly because they are dissatisfied with the original decision.  In many instances this is understandable but that is not the process to be adopted in an application for leave to appeal.  As I have said, and as it has been said by others, the Appeal Tribunal is not a forum to re-agitate those factual matters that were before the original Tribunal upon which a decision has been made.  Leave to appeal will ordinarily only be granted where there is some question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage; or, there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision and a reasonable prospect that the applicant would obtain further substantive relief.  Another question sometimes asked is: is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant, caused by some error?

1. In this matter the learned Adjudicator had a choice of accepting the evidence of Ms Jeilles or that of Ms Greaves where there was disagreement.  He preferred the latter and the conclusions he reached were open on that evidence.  The Appeal Tribunal will not interfere with those findings of fact unless those finding were not open on the evidence.

1. In her submissions in support of the application for leave to appeal, it is evident that Ms Jeilles is reiterating all of those matters that were argued in the original hearing.  An appeal is not an opportunity for a party to present their case again, it is for the purposes of correcting error in the original proceeding.

1. Ms Jeilles has been unable to identify any error on the part of the learned Adjudicator, nor is any apparent therefore, leave to appeal must be refused.