Reid v Hatchwell (No 2)
[2011] QCATA 19
•8 February 2011
| CITATION: | Reid v Hatchwell (No 2) [2011] QCATA 19 |
| PARTIES: | Mr Alexander Reid (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| Mr Donald Hatchwell (Respondent) | |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL280-10 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Justice Alan Wilson, President |
| DELIVERED ON: | 8 February 2011 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | Application for leave to appeal is refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – RENTAL TENANCIES – s 370 Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) – where the respondent informally sublet a room to the appellant – where respondent issued a Notice to Leave and appellant did not comply – whether the decision was fair and just according to the substantial merits of the case Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 32, 142(3)(a) Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232, cited Fox v Percy (2003) 197 ALR 201, cited Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388, applied |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard on the papers, pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Hatchwell is the lessee of premises at 23 Barry St, Cairns. Mr Hatchwell sublet rooms at the property to three other tenants, one of whom was Mr Reid.
On 15 October 2010, Mr Hatchwell lodged an application in QCAT’s Minor Civil Disputes jurisdiction seeking a termination of a rooming accommodation agreement with Mr Reid on the grounds of his failure to leave, and an order that Mr Reid pay him arrears of rent.
The matter was heard by a Magistrate acting as a QCAT Adjudicator on 26 October 2010. The learned Magistrate ordered that Mr Reid pay Mr Hatchwell $620.50, for arrears of rent and costs of the claim; that Mr Reid also pay Mr Hatchwell an ‘occupation fee’ of $120 per week pro rata for each part week of the period that he remained in possession after 27 October 2010; and, found and in effect declared that a Rooming Accommodation Agreement between them ended on 4 October 2010.
Mr Reid now seeks leave to appeal that decision. Leave is necessary: QCAT Act, s 142(3)(a)(i).
This appeal follows another appeal by Mr Reid of a decision of a Magistrate who dismissed an application brought by him seeking an order that two years’ worth of rent be returned to him on the grounds that Mr Hatchwell was intimidating him, and had threatened and assaulted him. Mr Reid’s application for leave to appeal was unsuccessful.
The question whether or not leave to appeal should be granted is usually addressed according to established principles. Is there a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision?[1] Is there a reasonable prospect that the applicant will obtain substantive relief?[2] Is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by some error?[3] Is there a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the appellate court or tribunal, would be to the public advantage?[4]
[1] QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[2] Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 at [13].
[3] QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd (supra).
[4]Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388, at 389; McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577 at 578, 580.
In his application for leave to appeal Mr Reid contends that the decision at first instance was manifestly unjust, and that Mr Hatchwell is currently in breach of five different laws. The latter submission does not appear, however, to have any bearing upon the proceedings before the Magistrate, or this appeal.
Mr Reid’s principal ground of appeal therefore appears to be, in general terms, that the learned Magistrate erred by making a decision which was manifestly unjust. This assertion will be taken as a general allegation of some error, negating the decision and warranting leave to appeal according to the principles set out above.
The transcript of the proceedings shows, however, that the learned Magistrate carefully considered the requirements of section 370 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (RTRA), which she detailed in her decision. She found that Mr Hatchwell reasonably believed that Mr Reid intentionally or recklessly endangered another person – namely, Mr Hatchwell – on the premises, or significantly interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of another resident, thus warranting a Notice to Leave and allowing him to remove Mr Reid from the property in accordance with section 375 of the RTRA. In coming to this conclusion, the learned Magistrate made reference to Mr Hatchwell’s evidence that Mr Reid assaulted him, locked him out of his workshop and punched him in the face.
[10] Nothing in Mr Reid’s submissions, or in the reasons themselves, suggests that any of these conclusions were not reasonably open on the evidence or involved any error. The decision sits comfortably with the findings of fact the learned Magistrate made. Her reliance upon section 370 also seems correct and there is nothing to suggest injustice, or error. Both the proceeding before her and this appeal seem, rather, to be quite misconceived and without foundation. The application for leave must be dismissed.
0