Predo v Richardson & Wrench

[2021] QCATA 60

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Predo v Richardson & Wrench [2021] QCATA 60

PARTIES:

JENNIFER PREDO

(applicant/appellant)

V

RICHARDSON & WRENCH

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL037-21

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO:

MCDT499/20 (Caboolture)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

22 April 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Howard

ORDERS:

1.       The application for a stay order is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where no leave to appeal yet granted – grounds for granting a stay – where no error of fact or law alleged – where no evidence as to detriment – where no reasonably arguable case on appeal – where no exceptional circumstances demonstrated – where decision-maker proceeded to hear and determine application in absence of party – where statutory power to hear and determine application in absence of party

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 58, s 142(3)(i), s 145(1), s 145(2)

Cooks Construction Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Aust Pty Ltd [2008] 2 Qd R 453

Day v Humphreys v Ors [2017] QCA 104
Hessey-Tenny v Jones [2018] QCATA 131

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. I dismissed an application for a stay order filed by Ms Predo, the applicant in this proceeding.  Ms Predo has requested reasons for my decision.  My reasons are as follows.

Background: the MCD proceedings

1. On 16 February 2021, an Adjudicator decided a minor civil dispute (MCD), MCDT499/20 (Caboolture), brought by the lessor’s agent, Richardson & Wrench Caboolture (‘R&W’), by making orders requiring that $605 of bond monies held by the Residential Tenancies Authority (the RTA) be paid to the lessor’s agent, and the balance, if any, to the tenants, Ms Predo and Christopher Beijnon. The amount of $605 was for costs of bond cleaning ($440.00) and carpet cleaning ($165.00) respectively.[1] 

   [1]Application for minor civil dispute – residential tenancy dispute filed 10 December 2020 in MCDT499-20 (Caboolture).

2. The hearing proceeded in the absence of the tenants after the Adjudicator had satisfied herself that it was appropriate to do so. The parties had been sent notices of hearing on 15 December 2020. The Notices warned the parties that, if a party did not attend the hearing, the Tribunal may proceed to hear and decide the matter in that party’s absence.

3. The hearing and the learned Adjudicator’s reasons for decision were recorded.  The Adjudicator referred to submissions filed by Ms Predo and Mr Beijnon, among other things, as purporting to make a counter-claim.  The learned Adjudicator found that Ms Predo and Mr Beijnon had an obligation to leave the premises in the same condition they were in at the start of the tenancy, fair wear and tear excepted.  The learned Adjudicator found on the evidence that the bond clean and carpet cleaning were reasonably required…