Kidd v State of Queensland

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Kidd v State of Queensland [2025] QCATA 57

PARTIES:

ROBERT STEWART KIDD 

(applicant)

v

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL170-25

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDQ3994 of 2025

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

11 June 2025

HEARING DATE:

11 June 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Stilgoe OAM

ORDERS:

1.     Robert Kidd’s leave to appeal allowed.

2.     Robert Kidd’s appeal refused.

3.     A Warrant of Possession to be issued on 11 July 2025 and remain in effect to 25 July 2025.

4.     The Warrant of Possession is to be executed as soon as reasonably practical after taking effect; and

5.     Entry under the Warrant of Possession shall only be between the hours of 8AM and 6PM.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the Tribunal terminated the applicant’s tenancy on the grounds of serious breach – where the applicant appealed on the ground of procedural fairness – where leave to appeal allowed – where appeal dismissed.  

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28, s 29, s 142(3)(a)(i)

Residential Tenancy and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 290A(2)(b)(ii).

Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:   R Kidd

Respondent:                    P Mathews, on behalf of the State of Queensland, through   the Department of Housing and Public Works

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr Kidd has lived in social housing for almost 30 years. On 6 May 2025, the Tribunal terminated Mr Kidd’s tenancy on the grounds of serious breach the particulars of which are that Mr Kidd pleaded guilty to, and was incarcerated for, a serious offence – going armed so as to cause fear; dangerous conduct with a weapon; possessing dangerous drugs, and lacking the authority required to possess explosives.

2. The Tribunal terminated the tenancy and issued a Warrant of Possession.

3. Mr Kidd wants to appeal that decision. He says that he was denied procedural fairness[1] because the Tribunal refused his application for an adjournment, he had no access to documents he wanted to produce to the Tribunal, and he lacked understanding of the proceeding which he was entitled to expect.[2]

   [1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act), s 28.

   [2]QCAT Act, s 29.

4. Because this is an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.[3]  Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.[4]  

   [3]QCAT Act, s 142(3)(a)(i).

   [4]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294, [3].

5. As Mason J (as his Honour then was) observed in Kioa v West,[5] the requirements of procedural fairness must be adjusted to the statutory framework governing the Tribunal in question:  

   What is appropriate in terms of natural justice depends on the circumstances of the case and they will include, inter alia, the nature of the…