Riley v Bishop

[2018] QCATA 151

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Riley v Bishop [2018] QCATA 151

PARTIES:

ADAM RILEY
 (appellant)

v

PRIYA BISHOP

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL023-18

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT2044 of  2017 (Brisbane)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

15 October 2018

HEARING DATE:

12 October 2018

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr J R Forbes, Member

ORDERS:

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – nature and limitations of applications for leave to appeal – minor civil dispute (residential tenancy dispute) – bond moneys – whether paid – whether evidence to discharge onus adduced – no appellable error demonstrated

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 32, s 142(3)
Residential Leases and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 61, s 77

Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139

Brunskill v Sovereign Marine & General Insurance Co Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 842
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472

Duke v Duke (1975) 12 SASR 106
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Snell v Morgan [2011] QCATA 316

Thompson & Anor v Jedanhay Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 246

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

The matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 21 August 2017 the appellant Adam Riley commenced a Minor Civil Dispute (residential tenancy) against one Brian Bishop. Subsequently it was ordered that Priya Bishop, Brian’s wife, was the proper respondent.[1]

   [1]See record of decision made 6 December 2017.

2. The appellant’s claim for $1,080 reads as follows:

   Bond was paid and I have the original receipt. Landlord is refusing to return bond as it was never lodged with the RTA.

3. The respondent denies that a bond was paid as alleged.[2]

   [2]Statutory declaration of Priya Bishop filed 6 December 2017; T page 20 line 41.

4. The respondent now seeks orders that the appellant be fined and ordered to pay $5,000 compensation for `harassment for two years’.[3] Apart from the fact that a counterclaim may not be added at this stage, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make either type of order.

   [3]Statutory declaration received at hearing on 6 December 2017

5. According to the respondent, the appellant `leased’[4] the respondent’s premises at Bundall from about 7 July 2014 to 4 October 2015, and again from 19 October 2015 to 17 January 2016.

   [4]It is not clear whether the arrangements between the parties constituted a lease (or leases) or some less formal arrangement.

6. It is common ground that these `leases’, lawful or otherwise[5], were not evidenced in writing.[6] According to the Brian Bishop: `That is what it was – a week to week, with no agreement. [sic] And that’s what [Riley] wanted to do.’[7] So informal were the arrangements that the absence of a bond would not be so surprising as normally it would be.

   [5]Cf  Residential Leases…