Niall v Mangrove Housing Association

CITATION: Niall v Mangrove Housing Association [2013] QCATA 123

PARTIES:	Mr John Charles Niall (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Mangrove Housing Association (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL412-12

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: 12 April 2013

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe, Senior Member
David Paratz, Member

DELIVERED ON: 22 April 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.        Leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS:

MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – whether grounds for appeal

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 3, s 162, s 164
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008, s 297

Brosnahan v Ronoff [2011] QCAT 439

Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232

Casey v Blume [2012] QCAT 627
Casey v Flanagan[2011] QCAT 320
Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1

Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] HCA 25
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd [1994] HCA 46
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
Lane v Morrison [2009] HCA 29

McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577
Owen v Menzies & Ors [2012] QCA 170

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

Applicant:	Mr John Niall
Respondent:	Ms L Reilly, for Mangrove Housing Association

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr Niall has a number of serious health issues. He was a tenant of a complex managed by Mangrove Housing Association and the dispute arises from his tenancy. Mr Niall filed a claim for compensation because of nuisance and harassment from other residents of the complex. Mangrove wanted to terminate Mr Niall’s tenancy because of his objectionable behaviour. The learned Adjudicator dismissed Mr Niall’s claim for compensation but terminated his tenancy.

2. Mr Niall wants to appeal that decision. He says that the Tribunal is not a court and is, therefore, illegal. He says that the warrant of possession is an illegal document because it refers to a court. He says that the Tribunal is corrupt because “it is too closely aligned with the people paying the bills”. He says that there is a corrupt arrangement between the Tribunal and Mangrove. He says that the Tribunal has abused his Constitutional right to free speech. Finally, he says that the Tribunal has perverted the course of justice.

3. Because this is an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary. The question whether or not leave to appeal should be granted is usually addressed according to established principles. Is there a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision?[1] Is there a reasonable prospect that the applicant will obtain substantive relief?[2] Is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice caused by some error?[3] Is there a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeals Tribunal, would be to the public advantage?[4]

The Tribunal is not a court

[1]        QUYD Pty Ltd…