Reimer v Brighton Bayside Caravan Park - [2025] QCA 6

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Reimer v Brighton Bayside Caravan Park [2025] QCA 6

PARTIES:

AARON REIMER
(applicant)
v
BRIGHTON BAYSIDE CARAVAN PARK
ABN 49 092 669 919
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 11632 of 2024
QCATA No 175 of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act

ORIGINATING COURT:

Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeal Tribunal at Brisbane – [2024] QCATA 90 (A/Senior Member Lember)

DELIVERED ON:

7 February 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 November 2024

JUDGES:

Bond and Flanagan and Brown JJA

ORDERS:

1. The application for leave to appeal is refused.

2. Submissions as to costs of no more than three pages must be provided by each party within 21 days of the publication of these reasons.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – INFERIOR COURTS – QUEENSLAND – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where the applicant resided in a modified caravan in the caravan park operated by the respondent pursuant to a tenancy agreement under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) – where the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal made orders terminating the tenancy agreement – where the applicant’s dwelling was removed from the site and destroyed – where the applicant applied to the Appeal Tribunal for orders, among other things, seeking leave to appeal the decision of the tribunal below – where the Appeal Tribunal refused all relief sought – whether there is a “final decision” which can be appealed to the Court of Appeal – whether there was an arguable case that the applicant’s former residence was a “manufactured home” within the meaning of the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 (Qld)

Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 (Qld), s 10, s 10A
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 150
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 293, s 297

Allen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2024] QCA 24, considered
Chandra v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2014] QCA 335, considered
Monte Carlo Caravan Park Pty Ltd v Curyer [2007] 2 Qd R 57; [2006] QCA 363, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M J Doyle for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
HopgoodGanim Lawyers for the respondent

BOND JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Brown JA and the orders proposed by her Honour.
FLANAGAN JA: I agree with Brown JA.
BROWN JA: This application arises out of proceedings in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a decision of the QCAT Appeal Tribunal (QCATAT) of 22 August 2024 which:
(a)refused an application to stay an earlier QCAT decision;
(b)refused an application for an extension of time to file an appeal or application for leave to appeal; and
(c)dismissed the appeal or application for leave to appeal.
Background

By way of background, the applicant resided in a modified caravan in the caravan park operated by the…

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: [2025] QCA 6
Decision Date: 7 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Reimer v Brighton Bayside Caravan Park involved a dispute between the applicant, Reimer, and the respondent, Brighton Bayside Caravan Park, regarding a tenancy agreement under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld). Reimer resided in a modified caravan in the respondent’s caravan park. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal terminated the tenancy agreement, leading to Reimer’s dwelling being removed from the site and destroyed. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Reimer applied to the Appeal Tribunal seeking, among other things, leave to appeal the tribunal’s decision. The Appeal Tribunal ultimately refused all relief sought by Reimer.

The primary legal issues for the Appeal Tribunal to determine were whether there was a final decision that could be appealed to the Court of Appeal and whether there was an arguable case that Reimer’s former residence could be classified as a "manufactured home" within the meaning of the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 (Qld). The tribunal needed to examine the statutory framework governing appeals and the criteria for classifying a residence as a manufactured home to resolve these issues.

In its reasoning, the Appeal Tribunal found that the decision made by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal did not constitute a final decision as per the statutory provisions allowing appeals to the Court of Appeal. The tribunal also concluded that there was no arguable case that Reimer’s dwelling met the criteria of a manufactured home under the relevant legislation. Consequently, the Appeal Tribunal dismissed Reimer’s application for leave to appeal and refused all other relief sought. The tribunal’s reasoning was based on the specific statutory provisions and the absence of a valid ground for appeal.

The final orders of the Appeal Tribunal were that the application for leave to appeal was refused, and submissions as to costs of no more than three pages were to be provided by each party within 21 days of the publication of these reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal is refused.

2. Submissions as to costs of no more than three pages must be provided by each party within 21 days of the publication of these reasons.

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.

CITATION:	Reimer v Brighton Bayside Caravan Park [2025] QCA 6
PARTIES:	AARON REIMER (applicant) v BRIGHTON BAYSIDE CARAVAN PARK ABN 49 092 669 919 (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 11632 of 2024 QCATA No 175 of 2024
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act
ORIGINATING COURT:	Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeal Tribunal at Brisbane – [2024] QCATA 90 (A/Senior Member Lember)
DELIVERED ON:	7 February 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 November 2024
JUDGES:	Bond and Flanagan and Brown JJA
ORDERS:	1. The application for leave to appeal is refused. 2. Submissions as to costs of no more than three pages must be provided by each party within 21 days of the publication of these reasons.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – INFERIOR COURTS – QUEENSLAND – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where the applicant resided in a modified caravan in the caravan park operated by the respondent pursuant to a tenancy agreement under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) – where the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal made orders terminating the tenancy agreement – where the applicant’s dwelling was removed from the site and destroyed – where the applicant applied to the Appeal Tribunal for orders, among other things, seeking leave to appeal the decision of the tribunal below – where the Appeal Tribunal refused all relief sought – whether there is a “final decision” which can be appealed to the Court of Appeal – whether there was an arguable case that the applicant’s former residence was a “manufactured home” within the meaning of the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 (Qld) Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 (Qld), s 10, s 10A Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 150 Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 293, s 297 Allen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2024] QCA 24, considered Chandra v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2014] QCA 335, considered Monte Carlo Caravan Park Pty Ltd v Curyer [2007] 2 Qd R 57; [2006] QCA 363, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M J Doyle for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf HopgoodGanim Lawyers for the respondent