Morse v Rolfe

[2017] QCAT 105

CITATION:

Morse v Rolfe [2017] QCAT 105

PARTIES:

Kate Morse
(Applicant)

v

Monique Rolfe

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDT0006-17

MATTER TYPE:

Residential tenancy matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Bertelsen

DELIVERED ON:

20 February 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.   The Application to transfer the matter to Toowoomba QCAT is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – Procedure – preferable venue for hearing – parties in regional locations – perceived prejudice to either or both parties

APPEARANCES:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The former tenant’s (Ms Morse) initiating application was filed at Brisbane on 3 January 2017 seeking a Bond refund, reimbursement of pest control, tank cleaning costs and compensation, all totalling $10,000.00. A statement and material in support was appended to the application as well as an enquiry as to whether the application could be heard in Toowoomba.

2. On 4 January 2017, the Tribunal Registry notified Ms Morse that if she wished for the application to be heard in Toowoomba then a Form 40 – Application for Miscellaneous Matters was required to be filed. If a Form 40 was filed then the Tribunal would make a decision after referring any such application to an Adjudicator.

3. As of early February 2017, no Form 40 application had been received by the Tribunal. The initiating application was listed for hearing.

4. On 8 February 2017, the applicant filed a Form 40 seeking a hearing in Toowoomba. The respondent to the initiating application (Ms Rolfe) objected to the transfer due to illness and travel issues.

5. Either venue, Brisbane or Toowoomba, would preclude one or both parties attending personally.

6. The initiating application having come thus far one or both parties could reasonably attend by phone. Phone attendance would not prejudice either party in the context of the initiating application. The initiating application ought now be properly heard in Brisbane.