Prospero v Carney

Link copied
Case Copied 6 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Prospero v Carney [2019] QCATA 152

PARTIES: NINETTE PROSPERO

(applicant)

v

KATRINA MAREE CARNEY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL256-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCD560/19 (Ipswich)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

29 October 2019

HEARING DATE:

On the Papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Browne

ORDERS:

The application to extend the time for filing the application for leave to appeal or appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – PROCEDURE – TIME, EXTENSION AND ABRIDGMENT – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where delay in filing the application for leave to appeal or appeal – whether discretion should be exercised to grant an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal or appeal


Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 61, s 143

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 293, s 326, s 329

Harper Property Builders Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCATA 70

Pappas v Meikeljohn’s Accountants [2017] QCATA 60

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

APPEARANCES:

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. Ninette Prospero, rented a property in Brassall, Queensland (as the ‘Tenant’) from Katrina Carney (as the ‘Lessor’) under a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term starting from 6 July 2018 and ending on 5 July 2019 (‘the Tenancy’).

  2. The Tenancy was managed by the Landlord’s agent, Rhino Property Management.

  3. Prior to the Tenancy ending the Landlord issued a Notice to leave (Form 12) dated 16 April 2019 to the Tenant giving more than two (2) months’ notice to vacate the premises by midnight on 5 July 2019.[1]

    [1]See Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (‘RTRA Act’), s 329.

  4. The Lessor’s agent later applied to the Tribunal for an order to vacate the premises on the basis that, as provided in the application, the Landlord ‘requires the property for family moving up from interstate’ and the Tenant was given more than two (2) months’ notice in writing to vacate.[2] The application for minor civil dispute – residential tenancy (Form 2) identified the premises as being in the suburb of Bellbird Park (not Brassall).

    [2]Application for minor civil dispute – residential tenancy dispute (Form 2) filed on 19 July 2019 in MCD560/19 (Ipswich).

  5. Following an oral hearing, an Adjudicator sitting in the Tribunal’s Minor Civil Disputes jurisdiction ordered that the residential tenancy agreement between the parties be terminated as from midnight on 31 October 2019 on the grounds of failure to leave. The learned Adjudicator also ordered that a warrant of possession issue. Relevantly, the warrant of possession identified the premises as being in the suburb of Bellbird Park (and not Brassall). The warrant of possession was later corrected by the Tribunal to identify the premises as being in Brassall.[3]

    [3]See application for reopening, correction, renewal or amendment filed on 1 October 2019 in MCD560/19 (Ipswich).

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Prospero v Carney and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2019] QCATA 152
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Prospero v Carney, the respondent sought an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal a decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The matter involved a minor civil dispute, with the application for an extension of time being brought over 10 months after the time for filing the application had lapsed. The primary judge considered whether the discretion should be exercised to grant the extension, taking into account the criteria set out in the case law. The court held that the respondent had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and that the extension was unlikely to result in a fair hearing of the appeal. The court concluded that the application for an extension of time should be refused, and the appeal was dismissed.

The legal issues before the court involved the procedure for seeking leave to appeal and the criteria for granting an extension of time. The court considered the relevant case law and the principles that should guide the exercise of the court's discretion in this regard. The court noted that the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal or appeal was significant, and that the respondent had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court also considered the likely outcome of the appeal, and whether the extension would result in a fair hearing of the appeal. The court concluded that the application for an extension of time should be refused, as the delay was significant and the respondent had not provided a satisfactory explanation for it.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application to extend the time for filing the application for leave to appeal or appeal is refused.

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.