Percey v Mackay Regional Council
[2013] QCATA 134
•7 May 2013
| CITATION: | Percey v Mackay Regional Council [2013] QCATA 134 |
| PARTIES: | Lyndon Percey (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| Mackay Regional Council (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL335-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Hon K Cullinane AM QC, Judicial Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 7 May 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | Leave to appeal is refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – RESIDENTIAL TENANCY – where the applicant resided in a caravan park managed by the respondent – where the respondent gave a notice to leave the premises to the applicant – where the applicant failed to hand over vacant possession of the premises on the handover day – where the respondent applied for a termination order – where the applicant claimed to be ill and appeared by telephone – where the Tribunal made the termination order – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal that decision – where the applicant claims the matter should have been adjourned – whether leave to appeal should be granted Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Section 142 of the QCAT Act confers rights of appeal. Sub-section (3) thereof requires the grant of leave to appeal in a minor civil dispute. The grant of leave requires that some particular reason be demonstrated. This might be some important or general principle of law or justice or it may be necessary to grant leave to correct an injustice.
This matter has a background of acrimonious disputation between the applicant and one Davie - who manages a caravan park where the applicant resided. The Respondent owns and operates the caravan park and leases a swimming pool to Davie. The various disputes have been the subject of complaints to various bodies.
The respondent served a Form 12 pursuant to the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act2008 (‘the Act’). This notice, a notice to leave, was given as provided for by the Act without grounds.
The matter had come before the Tribunal on the 28 September 2012 when the Applicant was informed that he was to be present on the resumed hearing and to have his witnesses present or the matter would proceed in his absence.
On the morning of 3 October 2012 the Tribunal received a telephone call from the Applicant stating that he was ill. The Tribunal stood the matter down and the Applicant was contacted and the matter proceeded with his appearing by telephone.
There was information that the Applicant had been seen in the caravan park that morning apparently in good health.
The Tribunal refused to receive some material from the Respondent because the Applicant had not been given notice of it.
The Tribunal considered that it was sufficient to prove that a notice to leave had been given and that if the Applicant wished to raise any of the statutory matters provided for in s 291 of the Act (matters which would, if made out, defeat a notice to leave) he had to give notice within 4 weeks of receiving the notice something he did not do.
The provisions of ss 291 and 292 of the Act limit the considerations to those the Tribunal addressed.
Section 293 of the Act provides for the issuing of a termination order where a notice to leave has been given and the tenant fails to handover possession on the handover day.
The Tribunal made such an order in the circumstances outlined above.
The relevant issues were then very limited.
The various matters raised by the Applicant and responded to by the Respondent in their outlines were largely irrelevant to the issues the Tribunal was concerned with. They were in large measures concerned with the various disputes which had arisen.
Insofar as the matters raised by the Applicant might be regarded as having raised a claim that the Tribunal has denied the Applicant procedural justice by not adjourning the matter the material does not satisfy me that the Applicant was treated unfairly in any relevant sense. He participated in the hearing of the matter by telephone and presented his case.
There is no basis for the grant of leave to appeal. The application is refused.
0
0
0