Reimer v Brighton Bayside Caravan Park - [2024] QCATA 90

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

REIMER V BRIGHTON BAYSIDE CARAVAN PARK [2024] QCATA 90

PARTIES:

AARON REIMER

(applicant)

V

BRIGHTON BAYSIDE CARAVAN PARK

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL175-24

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT 0040/22 (Sandgate)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DECISION MADE:

REASONS DELIVERED ON:

22 August 2024

28 August 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

A/Senior Member Lember

ORDERS:

1.     The application to stay a decision filed 14 June 2024 is refused.

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

3.     Therefore, the application for leave to appeal or appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – EXTENSION OF TIME – where application for leave to appeal filed two years out of time – where warrant of possession was executed two years prior - whether time should be extended

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where a stay is sought of a decision made in the minor civil dispute jurisdiction – whether to stay the decision after the warrant of possession has been executed – where application to stay the decision is misconceived

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32, s 58, s 61, s 122, s 143, s 145, sch 3

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accomodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 293, s 340

Body Corp for '11 Joseph' CTS 33588 v Desarrollo Pty Ltd ATF The Cove Trust 1 and anor [2022] QCATA 41

Body Corporate for No 9 Port Douglas Road v McEvoy [2011] QCATA 292
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman [2011] QCAT 229
Elphick v MMI General Insurance Ltd & Anor [2002] QCA 347
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
Hempel v Richardson & Wrench Hervey Bay [2018] QCATA 170
Hessey-Tenny & Anor v Jones [2018] QCATA 131
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577
QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

What is this decision about?

On 22 August 2024 the Appeal Tribunal refused Mr Reimer’s application to stay a decision made by the Tribunal below to terminate his tenancy of the Brighton Bayside Caravan Park (BBCP) and to issue a warrant of possession, together with his application to extend time to apply for leave to appeal, and to appeal that decision. Its reasons now follow.

Relevant factual background to the dispute

The BBCP’s application for termination was filed on 6 May 2022 grounded upon a failure to leave following the giving of a Form 12 Notice to Leave[1] with a handover date of 3 May 2022.
[1]Residential Tenancies and Rooming…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Reimer v Brighton Bayside Caravan Park 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: [2024] QCATA 90
Decision Date: 22 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Reimer was the appellant and Brighton Bayside Caravan Park was the respondent in this matter, which was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The dispute arose from a decision of the Magistrates Court of Queensland, which had determined the rights and obligations of the parties in relation to a caravan park site. The appeal was concerned with two primary issues: the extension of the time within which the appellant could file an application for leave to appeal, and the stay of proceedings in relation to the execution of a warrant of possession.

The court had to consider whether the appellant's application for leave to appeal, filed two years after the warrant of possession was executed, was within the allowable time frame. The appellant argued that the delay was due to exceptional circumstances and sought an extension of time to file the application. The court also needed to decide whether it was appropriate to stay the proceedings in relation to the execution of the warrant of possession, given that the appellant's application to stay was filed after the warrant had been executed.

The Court of Appeal found that the application for an extension of time was not justified, as the appellant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that warranted such an extension. The court also concluded that the application to stay the proceedings was misconceived because the decision to execute the warrant of possession had already been made and implemented. Therefore, the court refused both applications and dismissed the appeal.

The court's final orders were that the application to stay the decision made on 14 June 2024 was refused, the application to extend time to file the application for leave to appeal or to appeal was refused, and the application for leave to appeal or appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to stay a decision filed 14 June 2024 is refused.

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

3. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal or appeal is dismissed.

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.