Palm Lake Resort Pty Ltd v Graham

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Palm Lake Resort Pty Ltd v Graham [2024] QCAT 269

PARTIES:

PALM LAKE RESORT PTY LTD

(applicant)

v

GORDON GRAHAM

(respondent)

JUDY GRAHAM

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCL067-22

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

26 June 2024

HEARING DATE:

3 June 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

A/Member Lumb

ORDERS:

The Application filed on 8 November 2022 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL – where application to Tribunal to resolve dispute under the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 (Qld) – where respondents contend that their residence is not a ‘manufactured home’ as defined in the Act – whether dispute the subject of the Application is a ‘residential park dispute’ – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to resolve dispute

Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 (Qld), s 8, s 10, s 14A, s 115, s 117, Schedule 2

McKegney v Roofley Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 221

Monte Carlo Caravan Park Pty Ltd v Curyer & Curyer [2006] QCA 363

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant	Self-represented
Respondent	Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. By an application filed on 8 November 2022 (‘the Application’), the Applicant seeks the resolution by the Tribunal of a ‘residential park dispute’ pursuant to s 115 of the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 (Qld) (‘the MHA’). The Applicant is the owner of the ‘Palm Lake Resort Hervey Bay’(‘the Resort’) which is located at Eli Waters in the State of Queensland. The Respondents to the Application reside at the Resort.

2. In summary, the Applicant alleged a contravention by the Respondents of:

   (a)s 98 of the MHA by making an alteration or addition to their residence, namely painting, without the written consent of the Applicant;

   (b)s 105 of the MHA in respect of alleged conduct directed at employees of the Applicant.

3. In their material, the Respondents have raised an argument that goes to the issue of jurisdiction.

The issue of jurisdiction

1. Section 115 of the MHA provides that a party to a residential park dispute may, subject to section 116, apply to the Tribunal for an order to resolve the dispute.[1]

   [1]There is no dispute that the requirements of s 116 have been complied with.

2. Section 117 of the MHA provides:

   If a party to a residential park dispute applies to the tribunal for an order in relation to the dispute, the tribunal may make the following orders—

   (a)     an order the tribunal is authorised to make in relation to the application under another provision of this Act;

   (b)     any other order the tribunal considers appropriate to resolve the dispute.

3. As is evident from sections 115 and 117, central to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide the Application is the existence of a ‘residential park dispute’ between the Applicant and the Respondents.

4. The Dictionary to the MHA defines ‘residential park dispute’ by reference to s 14A of the MHA. Section 14A(1) provides that a ‘residential park dispute’ is, relevantly:

   (c)     a dispute between the park owner and home owner under…