QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Payne v Koukides (No 2) [2019] QCATA 169
PARTIES:
GRAYHAM ROSS PAYNE
(applicant/appellant)v TRUSTEE FOR VASSILIOUS KOUKIDES TRUST
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
APL289-19
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:
MCDT 1854/19
MATTER TYPE:
Appeals
DELIVERED ON:
16 December 2019
HEARING DATE:
13 December 2019
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Olding
ORDERS:
1. The applicant’s application to stay the decision of 11 September 2019 in Minor Civil Dispute MCDT 1854/19 is refused.
2. The Warrant of Possession issued in accordance with the Tribunal’s order of 11 September 2019 is to be reinstated to take effect on 10 January 2020 and remain in effect for 14 days, to expire at 6:00 pm on 24 January 2020.
3. Entry under the warrant shall only be between the hours of 8:00 am and 6:00 pm.
4. Grayham Ross Payne must inform the Tribunal whether he wishes to proceed with the application for leave to appeal or appeal, by: 4:00 pm on 23 December 2019.
5. If the applicant does not comply with direction 4 above, the application for leave to appeal or appeal may be dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where tenancy terminated and warrant of possession ordered to issue – whether stay should be granted until application for leave to appeal or appeal is determined – where applicant claimed to be in occupation pursuant to compromise of other proceedings – application refused
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), ss 58(1), 123
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 351Arthur & Anor v Husheer & Anor; Gautron & Anor v Husheer & Anor [2019] QCATA 146
Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Hessey-Tenny & Anor v Jones [2018] QCATA 131
Sommers v Bycroft [2019] QCATA 130
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
No appearance
Respondent:
G Koukides
REASONS FOR DECISION
The applicant is in possession of two houses in Browning Street, South Brisbane, which are owned by the respondent trustees of the estate of the late Vassilious Koukides. While he resides at the house at number 58, the applicant also lets out some rooms in that house. He has also let the house at number 62 to tenants. He has not paid rent for approximately two years and has not complied with orders made in other Tribunal proceedings for payment of some tens of thousands of dollars in outstanding rent on each property.
The applicant asserts that he has been entitled to possession of both properties, rent-free, since the respondent consented to orders of the Supreme Court of Queensland in other proceedings in November 2017.
On 25 October 2019, a Tribunal adjudicator ordered that tenancy agreements for both properties be terminated and that warrants of possession issue. The applicant filed applications for leave to appeal or appeal and for stays of the adjudicator’s decisions. The applications for leave to appeal or appeal…
Continue reading Payne v Koukides (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Payne v Koukides (No 2) [2019] QCATA 169
- Case
- [2019] QCATA 169
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the court was whether a stay should be granted under the general principles applicable to such requests. Payne argued that the stay was necessary to preserve the status quo and to avoid hardship. Koukides, on the other hand, contended that the stay was not warranted given the circumstances and the Tribunal's previous decision.
The court considered the general principles governing the grant or refusal of a stay of proceedings. It took into account the need to balance the rights and interests of both parties, the merits of the appeal, and the potential for hardship. The court found that Payne had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify a stay, particularly given that the warrant of possession was a clear and final order. The court emphasised that the stay of proceedings would interfere with the proper execution of the Tribunal's order and did not serve the interests of justice in this instance.
In conclusion, the court refused Payne's application to stay the decision of 11 September 2019 and reinstated the warrant of possession to take effect on 10 January 2020 for 14 days. Payne was directed to inform the Tribunal whether he wished to proceed with his application for leave to appeal or appeal by 23 December 2019. Failure to comply with this direction could result in the dismissal of his application for leave to appeal or appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant’s application to stay the decision of 11 September 2019 in Minor Civil Dispute MCDT 1854/19 is refused.
2. The Warrant of Possession issued in accordance with the Tribunal’s order of 11 September 2019 is to be reinstated to take effect on 10 January 2020 and remain in effect for 14 days, to expire at 6:00 pm on 24 January 2020.
3. Entry under the warrant shall only be between the hours of 8:00 am and 6:00 pm.
4. Grayham Ross Payne must inform the Tribunal whether he wishes to proceed with the application for leave to appeal or appeal, by: 4:00 pm on 23 December 2019.
5. If the applicant does not comply with direction 4 above, the application for leave to appeal or appeal may be dismissed.
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.