King v TIC Realty (No 3) - [2010] QCATA 104

CITATION:

King v TIC Realty (No 3) [2010] QCATA 104

PARTIES:	Ashley King (Applicant/Appellant)
v
TIC Realty (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL306-10

MATTER TYPE:

Appeal

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Alan Wilson, President

DELIVERED ON: 10 December 2010

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: Grant the respondent an extension of time to file submissions

CATCHWORDS :

PROCEDURE – EXTENSION OF TIME – where respondent sought short extension of time to file submissions in the appeal proceeding – whether extension should be granted

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 3, 4, 28, 61, 62

REASONS FOR DECISION

TIC Realty was the agent of the owner of residential premises at Eight Mile Plains in proceedings brought in QCAT’s Minor Civil Disputes jurisdiction against Mr King, the tenant. On 8 November 2010, at the conclusion of the hearing, a QCAT Adjudicator ordered that the residential tenancy agreement be terminated as from midnight on 15 November 2010 and that a warrant for the possession of the premises issue on 16 November 2010, and remain in effect until 30 November 2010.
Mr King has sought leave to appeal QCAT’s decision. Leave is necessary: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) s 142(3). On 15 November 2010 it was ordered that the application for leave to appeal (and the appeal if leave is granted) would be determined on the papers[1]. A timetable for an exchange of submissions was set, and is presently in train.
[1] Pursuant to s 32 of the QCAT Act
Mr King also sought a stay of the operation of the Adjudicator’s decision which was refused, with reasons, on 23 November 2010.
In his application for leave to appeal, an order had been made on 15 November 2010 to the effect that the application would be determined on the papers, according to a timetable: Mr King was to file and serve his written submissions by 4pm on 7 December 2010, and the respondent within 21 days thereafter.
It seems that Mr King filed written submissions with his application for leave to appeal and served them on the respondent on 22 November 2010, so the 21 day period began to run then. On 8 December 2010 the respondent filed an application to extend the time for its submissions from 12 December – when the 21 days expired – until 4pm on 17 December. That extension was granted under an order of 10 December.
Mr King now seeks reasons for that decision.
The unfortunate effect of s 122 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) appears to be that even in applications to QCAT’s Appeal Tribunal for leave to appeal minor civil disputes decisions, reasons must yet be given for minor interlocutory directions – involving, here, an extension of time for 5 days of no possible moment or consequence to any party.
It is regrettable that the Tribunal is diverted from more important work by demands of the kind Mr King has now…

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 King v TIC Realty (No 3)

Details

AGLC: King v TIC Realty (No 3) [2010] QCATA 104
Case: [2010] QCATA 104
Decision Date: 10 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In King v TIC Realty (No 3), the respondent sought a short extension of time to file submissions in the appeal proceeding. The application was before the court, which needed to decide whether the extension should be granted. The key legal issues involved determining whether the respondent had a sufficient justification for the delay in filing the submissions and whether granting the extension would cause any prejudice to the appellant.

The court considered the respondent's explanation for the delay, which included issues with their legal representative and the complexity of the case. The court also assessed whether the extension was reasonable and whether there was a good prospect of the appeal being successful if the extension was granted. The court concluded that the respondent had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay and that granting the extension would not cause any prejudice to the appellant. Consequently, the court found that the extension should be granted to allow the respondent to adequately present their case in the appeal. The court ordered that the respondent be granted an extension of time to file their submissions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Grant the respondent an extension of time to file submissions

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.