Pavitt v Fisher-Charles

CITATION:	Pavitt v Fisher-Charles [2015] QCATA 132
PARTIES:	Tina Pavitt (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Adam Fisher-Charles (First Respondent) Anne Fisher-Charles (Second Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL247-15

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: 4 September 2015

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF:	Justice Carmody
DELIVERED ON:	4 September 2015

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1.    Leave to appeal is granted.

2.    The matter is adjourned for a one day hearing at the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal at date to be listed not before 30 September 2015.

3.    The parties are granted leave to appear by teleconference.

4.    The appeal will be conducted by rehearing.

5.    The applicant must file any submissions and additional evidence and material the applicant intends to rely on at the hearing referred to in Direction 2 by:

4:00PM, 11 September 2015

6.    The respondents must file any submissions, including the identification of a clear legal basis for their Minor Civil Dispute claim in MCD39/15, and additional evidence and material the respondents intend to rely on at the hearing referred to in Direction 2 by:

4:00PM, 18 September 2015

7.    The applicant may, but is not required to, file submissions in reply to the submissions of the respondents by:

4:00PM, 25 September 2015

8.    Notwithstanding Directions 4, 5, 6 and 7, the applicant and respondents will be required to seek leave of the Appeal Tribunal to adduce any additional evidence and material, which was not before the original decision-maker, that the applicant or respondents intend to rely on at the hearing referred to in Direction 2.

9.    If the applicant or respondents are not prepared to present their case on the date to be listed in accordance with Direction 2, the matter may proceed on the basis of the evidence before the Appeal Tribunal.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE –APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AND APPEAL – DENIAL OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – REFUSAL OF ADJOURNMENT PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS –where the applicant was the owner of a residential property which was leased as holiday accommodation – where the respondents contracted with the application for temporary accommodation – where the applicants claim certain defects in the condition and facilities of the premises renders it uninhabitable or contrary to certain representations made in online advertisements – where the applicants filed a minor civil dispute claim in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court – where the listing for the proceedings was modified significantly by the respondents and the applicant – where the applicant was labouring under significant circumstantial exigencies at a time immediately anterior to the hearing – were the applicant adduced sworn oral evidence that she had attempted to contact several witnesses who failed to appear as organised at the hearing – where the applicant sought to support the oral evidence with written communications contained on her mobile phone – where the Magistrate refused to receive evidence of the written communications on the mobile phone – where the Magistrate refused to grant…