Redcliffe Real Estate Pty Ltd v Cacciola

[2018] QCAT 62

CITATION:

Redcliffe Real Estate Pty Ltd v Cacciola [2018] QCAT 62

PARTIES:

Redcliffe Real Estate Pty Ltd t/as Woody Point Professionals
(Applicant)

v

Domenico Cacciola & Kristy Renee Cacciola

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDO10-17

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Holzberger

DELIVERED ON:

22 February 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

Directions:

1.     The hearing listed for the 26 February 2018 is adjourned to a date to be fixed.

2.     The application for transfer of the proceeding to QCAT in Brisbane is refused.

Orders:

1.      The application for non-publication order is refused.

2.      The application for a closed hearing is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

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 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 22 February 2018, Domenico Cacciola and Kristy Cacciola (“the Cacciolas”) applied to the Tribunal for directions for:

   1.     Adjournment of the hearing listed for 26 February 2018;

   2.     Transfer of the proceedings from Redcliffe to QCAT in Brisbane;

   And the following orders:

   3.     A closed hearing; and

   4.     A non-publication order.

2. Redcliffe Real Estate Pty Ltd trading as Woody Point Professionals (“Woody Point Professional”) ultimately advised that they would consent to the adjournment but opposed the remaining direction and orders.

3. On Thursday 22 February 2018, I determined the matter and gave a direction adjourning the hearing to a date to be fixed.  I refused the application for transfer, a closed hearing and a non-publication order.  These are the reasons for those decisions.

4. Having regard to the proximity of the hearing date (Monday 26 February 2018) and the consent of Woody Point Professionals to the Cacciolas’ request, I consider it preferable to adjourn the hearing to a date to be fixed.

5. The Tribunal may make directions to ensure the speedy and fair conduct of the proceeding.[1]  The Cacciolas’ application sets out the reason for their application for a change of venue as follows:

   “Redcliffe have made a number of process, procedural errors.  We lack faith that we will receive a fair hearing in Redcliffe, in particular a number of ongoing complaints against their process failures.”

   [1]QCAT Act, s 62(1).

6. Woody Point Professionals, who are the applicants in these proceedings, oppose the transfer on the basis that it is located at Redcliffe and the Cacciolas at Mango Hill.  Accordingly, it is significantly more convenient for the hearing to be held at Redcliffe.

7. I do not accept that a complaint or series of complaints about registry staff or procedures alone is sufficient to create a reasonable apprehension of bias at the hearing.

8. I accept Woody Point Professionals contention that Redcliffe is the more convenient and appropriate venue.

9. The Cacciolas’ application for a closed hearing and non-publication order are unsupported by explanation, evidence or submissions.

10. The Tribunal has power to make a non-publication order[2] and direct that a hearing be held in private[3] only if it is necessary:

    a)To avoid interfering with the proper administration of justice; or

    b)To avoid endangering the physical and mental health or safety of a person; or

    c)To avoid offending public decency or morality; or

    d)To avoid the publication of confidential information or information whose publication would be contrary to the public interest; or

    e)For any other reason for in the interest of justice.

    [2]QCAT Act, s 66(2),

    [3]QCAT Act, s 90(2).

11. Given that the application for Minor Civil Dispute is in respect of a sum of $364.00 for the balance of advertising costs incurred in the sale of a home it is difficult to imagine a set of circumstances which would make such orders necessary, but if such a set of circumstances exist, it is for the Cacciolas to bring them to the attention of the Tribunal and they have failed to do that.