Reihana v Beenleigh Show Society

Reihana was the tenant of a caravan on the property of the Beenleigh Show Society, which sought his eviction. The Society applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) for an eviction order, which was granted. Reihana did not attend the hearing on 6 June 2019 when the Society's submissions were heard, and he did not establish a satisfactory reason for his absence. He had previously failed to attend the hearing on 25 February 2013, and he had absented himself from the country from 7 March to 18 May 2013, at a crucial time in the proceedings. He sought to reopen the primary decision on the basis of 'fresh' evidence, but his application was out of time, and an extension of time was refused. His reopening application was then converted to an application for leave to appeal, and the time for seeking leave to appeal was extended. However, Reihana did not attend the hearing of the application for leave to appeal, and he did not establish a satisfactory reason for his absence. The court held that Reihana had not taken due care of his interests and had not demonstrated that he had a reasonable excuse for his failure to attend the hearings.

The legal issues before the court were whether due process had been followed and whether Reihana had taken due care of his interests. The court held that Reihana had not taken due care of his interests and had not established a satisfactory reason for his failure to attend the hearings. The court noted that Reihana had been well aware of the proceedings since April 2013 and had been duly served with the Society's initial application. The court also noted that Reihana had been warned by the Society's solicitor that her client's time for filing an eviction case was strictly limited. The court held that Reihana's decision to absent himself from the country and go out of contact at a crucial time could only be described as a high-risk policy. The court held that Reihana's failure to attend the hearings was a significant factor in the decision not to grant leave to appeal.

The court held that Reihana had not established a satisfactory reason for his failure to attend the hearings, and it was not procedurally fair to the Society to grant an adjournment. The court noted that an order for costs would have been a doubtful remedy, given Reihana's non-compliance with orders of the Tribunal and his enjoyment of compassionate remission of tribunal fees on financial grounds. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.