Place on behalf of Zullo & Di Pietro v Zahner
[2013] QCATA 342
•16 December 2013
| CITATION: | Place on behalf of Zullo & Di Pietro v Zahner [2013] QCATA 342 |
| PARTIES: | Place on behalf of Zullo & Di Pietro (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| Lee Zahner Bradley Lawrence David Stewart (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL387 -13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member Stilgoe OAM |
| DELIVERED ON: | 16 December 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Leave to appeal refused |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where non-compliance with directions – where application for leave to appeal does not disclose any reasons for application Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 143(2)(b) SZMIP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 217 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
The appeal tribunal heard and determined this matter on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Messrs Stewart and Zahner rented a property at New Farm through Place Group Pty Ltd. On 19 March 2013, they issued a Form 11 Notice to Remedy Breach claiming raw sewage had contaminated the pool, downstairs area and upstairs bathroom. The breach was not remedied so Messrs Stewart and Zahner terminated the tenancy agreement and applied to the tribunal for the refund of their bond. The tribunal confirmed the termination of the tenancy and ordered that the bulk of the bond be refunded to Messrs Stewart and Zahner.
The tribunal received an application for leave to appeal from “Place on behalf of Zullo & Di Pietro”. Even though that is not the name of any party to the original proceeding, the tribunal accepted the application. The ground of appeal is stated in these terms: “The plumber reported the blockage could not occur in this location as specified by the tenant.”
Place did not file an affidavit of service as required by paragraph 2 of my directions of 19 September 2013. It did not file any further submissions as required by paragraph 3 my directions. Pursuant to paragraph 5 of my directions, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed for non-compliance.
In any event, Place has not pointed to any error by the learned Adjudicator. The application for leave to appeal does not comply with s 143(2)(b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) because there has been no attempt to state the reasons for the application[1]. It is ill-formed, poorly and thoughtlessly drafted.
[1] SZMIP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 217 at [10].
The application for leave to appeal should be dismissed.
0
1
0