Matthews v Trinity Place Investments Pty Ltd
[2024] QCAT 400
•30 August 2024
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Matthews & Ors v Trinity Place Investments Pty Ltd [2024] QCAT 400
PARTIES:
Judith Lee Matthews, John Newham, Amanda Zieball, Don Hastie, Mark Gibson, Melinda Dean, Craig Clarke, Robert Dickie, Ian Clow, Barry Overs, Coleen Toohey, Victor Springall, Carol Carter, David Hibbert
(applicants)
v
TRINITY PLACE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
OCL051-24
MATTER TYPE:
Other civil dispute matters
DELIVERED ON:
30 August 2024
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Deane
ORDERS:
The Application for a tribunal hearing is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
CATCHWORDS:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – GENERALLY – Jurisdiction of Tribunal – statutory pre-requisites for application to Tribunal under the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 (Qld)
Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 (Qld), s 108, s 116
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 47, s 61
Hewitson & Homans v Hometown Australia/Gateway Lifestyle [2022] QCAT 74
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’)
Applicants:
JL Matthews
Respondent:
M Behlau & Associates
REASONS FOR DECISION
Judith Lee Matthews owns a cabin situated on land owned by Trinity Place Investments Pty Ltd (‘the Owner’). Ms Matthews as lead applicant filed an Application for a tribunal hearing (‘the Application’) on her own behalf and on behalf of other owners of cabins, who signed the Application, seeking orders that the Owner:
(a)has no legal basis to claim ‘land rates’ from Ms Matthews or any of the other applicants; and
(b)pay the applicants’ legal costs.
On the Application Ms Matthews ticked the box to indicate that the dispute has not been to mediation and ticked the box that the Application is not made under an exempt provision under section 116(5) of the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 (‘the Act’) – namely sections 38(1), 39(4), 52(3), 55(2) or 94(4).
Ms Matthews also filed an Application for miscellaneous matters seeking the following directions:
(a)the requirement for mediation under section 108 of the Act be dispensed with;
(b)that the Application be referred for determination of whether Ms Matthew’s cabin is a “Manufactured home” within the meaning of the Act and that the land on which the cabin is situated is a “residential park” within the meaning of the Act;
(c)that a timetable be set for the preliminary issues.
Ms Matthews submits that these directions should be made because there is a dispute between the Applicants and the Owner regarding a claim for contribution to general rates, the Owner does not accept that this dispute is within the jurisdiction of the Act and the resolution of this preliminary issue will assist in the resolution the dispute between the parties.
Ms Matthews also filed an application for leave to be legally represented.
On 29 July 2024, the Tribunal made directions for the Application, the application for directions and the application for leave to be legally represented to be given to the Owner, for any responses to be filed and for the application for directions and the application for leave to be legally represented to be determined on the papers.
On 21 August 2024, the Owner filed an outline of submissions and an affidavit. It contends that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under the Act because a duplex cabin is not a “manufactured home” for the purposes of the Act, it says that this has recently been determined as a preliminary issue in a District Court proceeding involving another owner of a cabin. It seeks a stay of the Tribunal proceeding while the District Court proceeding is further determined. It submits that the District Court proceeding is likely to be heard in October 2024 and that the determination in that matter is likely to be relevant to the disputes between the Applicants and themselves.
There is a dispute between the parties as to whether or not the Act applies to the Applicants’ cabins and therefore whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction in respect of this dispute.
However, there is a further jurisdictional issue, which the parties have failed to address in detail, which is highlighted by the direction sought to dispense with mediation. In considering the Application for directions it is necessary to consider whether mediation could be dispensed with.
The provisions of the Act make it clear that a party to a residential park dispute may only apply to the Tribunal in certain circumstances. Section 116 of the Act provides that mediation under section 108 of the Act is required to enliven the Tribunal’s jurisdiction unless the application is a dispute under section 14A(1)(b) of the Act or the application is authorised under an exempt provision.
This is not a dispute under section 14A(1)(b), which provision relates to a dispute between a seller and park owner about the park owner’s failure or refusal to consent to the assignment the seller’s interest in a site agreement to a buyer.
Ms Matthews has indicated in the Application that this is not a dispute under an exempt provision. For completeness, having considered each of the exempt provisions, I find that the dispute is not one contemplated by an exempt provision.
The onus is on the Applicants to ensure that the pre-requisites for applying to the Tribunal under section 116 of the Act have been satisfied. They may be of the view that mediation would be futile given the positions adopted by the parties to date as to the application of the Act.
The Tribunal has previously found, and I agree, that the pre-requisites must be complied with before the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine an application and that jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the Tribunal even by the agreement of the parties if the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under the legislation.[1] The Tribunal is an inferior court of record and must find its power in the QCAT Act or an enabling Act.
[1]Hewitson & Homans v Hometown Australia/Gateway Lifestyle [2022] QCAT 74 [23].
The pre-requisites have not been satisfied by the Applicants. This is not a procedural matter, which can be waived by the Tribunal.[2] The Tribunal currently has no jurisdiction under the Act, whether or not the dispute is otherwise governed by the Act. I make no findings in relation to the broader jurisdictional point. The Application is not properly before the Tribunal and is therefore lacking in substance.[3] The Application is dismissed.[4] This decision of itself does not preclude the Applicants from filing an application seeking mediation.
[2]QCAT Act, s 61.
[3]Ibid, s 47.
[4]Ibid, s 47(3).
0
1
2