Lang v Centa E Pty Ltd

[2011] QCAT 641

CITATION: Lang v Centa E Pty Ltd [2011] QCAT 641

PARTIES:	Mr Gregory Paul Lang t/as Olive Thyme Deli
v
Centa E Pty Ltd

APPLICATION NUMBER:   RSL036-11   

MATTER TYPE: Retail shop leases matters

HEARING DATE:     On the papers

HEARD AT:  Brisbane

DECISION OF: Patricia Hanly, Member

DELIVERED ON: 9 December 2011

DELIVERED AT:      Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Where application dismissed – no notice of dispute lodged

Retail Shop Leases Act 1994

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr Lang lodged an application for an order to resolve a retail tenancy dispute on 18 March 2011.  He sought orders for alleged breach of the lease by the landlord, and consequential loss.

1. Mr Lang had not, however, lodged an application in Form 4 for mediation of the dispute prior to 18 March 2011. Section 63 of the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (the Act) provides the basis for the dispute to be referred to the Tribunal by the mediator.

1. Following a Directions Hearing on 25 May 2011, Mr Lang lodged the Form 4 in the Tribunal on 30 May 2011.  At the time that it was lodged, Mr Lang stated that to the best of his knowledge he had lodged a Form 4 together with other material in support of the application lodged on 18 March 2011.  No Form 4 has been located in the Tribunal’s records other than the one lodged on 30 May 2011.

1. On 10 August 2011 the respondent, Centa E Pty Ltd, lodged an application seeking an order that the application be dismissed on the basis that the Tribunal was deprived of jurisdiction to hear and determine Mr Lang’s application because of his non-compliance with sections 64(1)(a) and (b) of the Act.

1. Mr Lang entered into his lease with Centa E Pty Ltd in April 2008.  He terminated the lease by writing to Centa E Pty Ltd on Sunday 30 May 2010.  He stated that he posted the letter on 31 May 2010.  On 1 June 2010, the Centre Manager emailed Mr Lang, referring to his email (with no date nominated) advising that the shop would be inspected the following day.  In the absence of an email from Mr Lang to which the Centre manger’s email might refer, it appears reasonable to assume that the Centre manger was in fact referring to Mr Lang’s letter of termination dated 30 May 2010.  On that basis the lessor had notice of the termination on 1 June 2010. 

1. Mr Lang’s application lodged on 18 March 2011 must be dismissed, as he had not sought mediation of the dispute at that stage. In the event that Mr Lang’s application for mediation does not resolve his issues, then under section 63 the dispute can be referred to the Tribunal by the mediator, or under section 64 by application of a party.