Reilly v Brisbane Housing Company
[2017] QCATA 7
•12 January 2017
CITATION: | Reilly v Brisbane Housing Company [2017] QCATA 7 |
| PARTIES: | Robert Darcy Reilly (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| Brisbane Housing Company (Respondent) | |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL448-16 |
MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
HEARING DATE: | 12 January 2017 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Senior Member Stilgoe OAM |
DELIVERED ON: | Ex tempore reasons 12 January 2017 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application for a stay is refused. 2. The warrant of possession will reissue on 1 February 2017 and will expire on 15 February 2017. |
CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LANDLORD AND TENANT – RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES LEGISLATION – when tenancy agreement terminated due to intimidating behaviour – whether procedural unfairness – whether grounds for appeal |
APPEARANCES: | |
APPLICANT: | Robert Darcy Reilly |
RESPONDENT: | Alycia Meikle, Brisbane Housing Company |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Reilly is a tenant of a property managed by the Brisbane Housing Company. On 16 November 2016, in Mr Reilly’s absence, the tribunal ordered that Mr Reilly’s tenancy agreement to be terminated. Mr Reilly applied for a reopening of that decision and a stay. The stay was granted, but the reopening was refused.
Mr Reilly has now appealed the tribunal’s decision and has again applied for a stay. To succeed in an application for a stay, Mr Reilly has to demonstrate three things: firstly, a good arguable case, secondly, the balance of convenience favours a stay and, thirdly, that without a stay there’s no utility in the appeal.
Mr Reilly’s submissions in relation to the good arguable case is that he has not been convicted of any criminal activity - particularly he’s not been convicted of any assaults or intimidation or anything like that. He considers it unfair. He also considers the application for termination to be racist because he is one of the last indigenous people in the premises. He says it’s unfair because on his statements today other people are permitted to live in the Brisbane Housing Company in squalor, whereas, he keeps his rooms clean. There are drug dealers on the floor who are still there. He is not involved in drugs is the implicit assertion about that, and there are troublemakers who are far worse than him who are permitted to stay there.
I sympathise with all of those comments, Mr Reilly. Unfortunately, they are not matters which would be good grounds for appeal. They might have been matters that you could have talked about at the tribunal had you turned up.
MR REILLY:
I’m just going to go home and torch the room.
And quite frankly, saying that has just changed my mind about – well, Mr Reilly, here is the problem, you see, that your mouth says - - -
MR REILLY:
Well, I thought you were were just going to say I’ve got to go home and pack up all my stuff and get out now.
No, I wasn’t going to say that. But, see, the mere fact that you say that to a tribunal is so stupid because people take that at face value, and they are intimidated by that. So, Mr Reilly, I can’t help you if you don’t help yourself. And obviously your style of communication has completely put the Housing Company administration - - -
MR REILLY:
You know, if I could go to every floor on the premises and ask them to sign a declaration to me on do they think I should be evicted – on what they think of Janet Rice and Dean Mainwaring – and I tell you what, 90 per cent of them will say no.
And it’s not just Mr Mainwaring and Ms Rice. The statements to the tribunal were not just from those two people. So there are no good arguable grounds for granting leave to appeal.
The second issue – the second thing you have to demonstrate is the balance of convenience, and the things that I am thinking about in relation to that is that you were one of the original tenants. You’ve been there for five years. You have a medical condition which will make it difficult for you to move. On the other side of the equation is Brisbane Housing Company has 82 tenants and a lot of those tenants are living in fear of you, Mr Reilly.
I was inclined to adjourn this to give you time to get some medical reports, however your outbursts in the tribunal hearing today have convinced me that the relationship between you and the Brisbane Housing Company and the other tenants is unsustainable. The stay is refused. The warrant of possession will reissue, however I’m going to give Mr Reilly some time to vacate. So the warrant of possession will take effect on 1 February 2017 and be authorised for a period of 14 days from 1 February. So it will expire on 15 February 2017.
0
0
0