Palmer v Madrone Pty Ltd - [2025] QCATA 56

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Palmer v Madrone Pty Ltd [2025] QCATA 56

PARTIES:

ROSS LESLIE PALMER

(applicant/appellant)

v

MADRONE PTY LTD ACN 637 343 723

(respondent)

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

APL277-24

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

4 June 2025

HEARING DATE:

14 May 2025

DECISION OF:

Member Roney KC

ORDERS:

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL THAT:

1.     The application to stay a decision filed on 10 September 2024 is refused.

2.     The interim order for a stay in paragraph 2 of the directions made on 16 October 2024 is vacated.

3.     The Warrant of Possession made on 19 August 2024 is re-issued to take effect on the date of these reasons.

4.     The Warrant of Possession shall remain in effect for 30 days to expire at 6:00pm from the date of these reasons.

5.     The Warrant of Possession is to be executed as soon as reasonably practicable after taking effect.

6.     Entry under the warrant shall only be between the hours of 8:00am and 6:00pm.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where a stay is sought of a decision made in the minor civil dispute jurisdiction to terminate or treat as terminate a residential tenancy because the term of the tenancy has expired – where tenant makes an unspecified claim to an interest in the property owned by a family trust in which he is a discretionary beneficiary and seeks leave to appeal the decision – where parties previously before the Supreme Court in longstanding proceedings – whether application to terminate or orders for a Warrant of Possession ought to be stayed or the application for leave to appeal and appeal ought be stayed – whether to stay the decision to terminate the tenancy pending the outcome of the application for leave to appeal or appeal

LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES JURISDICTION – where notice to leave issued – where tenant refused to leave – where tenant argued existence of unarticulated claims that may entitle him to remain in possession – whether tenant should be given opportunity to pursue those claims in court of competent jurisdiction

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PARTIES AND REPRESENTATION – GENERALLY– where the applicant is impecunious and without legal representation- whether denial of natural justice or inherent unfairness and injustice resulting from lack of legal representation – whether the application for leave to appeal should be allowed

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 291, s 293, s 297, s 350

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 32, s 58, s 61, s 142, s 146

Fleger v Joubert [2024] QCATA 13
King v King [2010] QCATA 84
King v King & Ors [2012] QCA 39 [2012] 2 Qd R 448

Sanderson v Bank of Queensland Limited [2016] QCA 137

APPEARANCES &…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Palmer v Madrone Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Palmer v Madrone Pty Ltd [2025] QCATA 56
Case: [2025] QCATA 56
Decision Date: 4 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Palmer v Madrone Pty Ltd concerned a dispute over a residential tenancy in Queensland. The appellant, Palmer, a discretionary beneficiary of a family trust, was a tenant in a property owned by the respondent, Madrone Pty Ltd. After the tenancy expired, Madrone applied to terminate the tenancy and obtained a Warrant of Possession. Palmer, who was impecunious and unrepresented, sought to appeal the decision and applied for a stay of the Warrant of Possession pending the outcome of the appeal. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether to grant a stay of the proceedings and whether Palmer should be granted leave to appeal the decision.

The court had to decide whether to grant a stay of the decision to terminate the tenancy and the Warrant of Possession, given Palmer's unspecified claims that may entitle him to remain in possession. The court also had to determine whether Palmer's lack of legal representation and financial resources amounted to a denial of natural justice or inherent unfairness, justifying the grant of leave to appeal. Further, the court had to consider whether to allow the appeal and stay the Warrant of Possession pending the appeal's outcome.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and refused the stay application. The court held that Palmer's unspecified claims did not entitle him to remain in possession and that the decision to terminate the tenancy and issue the Warrant of Possession was appropriate. The court found that Palmer's lack of legal representation did not result in a denial of natural justice or inherent unfairness, as the application process was straightforward and Palmer had been given ample opportunity to present his case. The court also held that there was no merit in the appeal and that staying the Warrant of Possession would cause significant prejudice to Madrone. Accordingly, the court vacated the interim stay and re-issued the Warrant of Possession.

The court ordered that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, the stay application was refused, and the Warrant of Possession was re-issued with specific conditions for execution. The Warrant of Possession was to remain in effect for 30 days and could only be executed between the hours of 8:00am and 6:00pm.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL THAT:

1. The application to stay a decision filed on 10 September 2024 is refused.

2. The interim order for a stay in paragraph 2 of the directions made on 16 October 2024 is vacated.

3. The Warrant of Possession made on 19 August 2024 is re-issued to take effect on the date of these reasons.

4. The Warrant of Possession shall remain in effect for 30 days to expire at 6:00pm from the date of these reasons.

5. The Warrant of Possession is to be executed as soon as reasonably practicable after taking effect.

6. Entry under the warrant shall only be between the hours of 8:00am and 6:00pm.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.