Place on behalf of Zullo & Di Pietro v Zahner

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.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Place on behalf of Zullo & Di Pietro v Zahner involved a dispute where Place, acting on behalf of Zullo & Di Pietro, sought leave to appeal a decision in a minor civil dispute. The appeal was against Zahner, and the nature of the dispute related to non-compliance with specific court directions. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant, Place, had disclosed sufficient reasons for the court to grant leave to appeal. The court was required to determine if the application for leave to appeal met the criteria set out in the relevant legislation and case law, particularly focusing on the need for a valid and compelling justification for the appeal. The primary consideration was whether the application disclosed any reasons for the appeal, which is a mandatory requirement for granting leave in minor civil disputes.

The court found that the application did not disclose any reasons for the appeal, and thus, the applicant failed to meet the statutory requirement. Consequently, the court held that the application did not disclose any reasons for the appeal, and the appeal was not justified. As a result, the court refused the application for leave to appeal, adhering to the legal principles that require a valid and compelling justification for appeals in minor civil disputes.

The court's decision was final, and the order was that leave to appeal was refused. This outcome underscores the importance of compliance with procedural requirements and the necessity for applicants to provide clear and convincing reasons for an appeal to be considered.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established