Robinson v 182 Holdings Pty Ltd

[2025] QCAT 333

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Robinson v 182 Holdings Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 333

PARTIES:

DEBRA SUSAN ROBINSON

(APPLICANT)

IAN ROBINSON

(applicant)

v

182 HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 941237317

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

RSL020-25

MATTER TYPE:

Retail shop lease

DELIVERED ON:

28 August 2025

HEARING DATE:

4 August 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member C Wilson

ORDERS:

The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

LANDLORD AND TENANT – RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL TENANCIES LEGISLATION JURISDICTION, POWERS AND APPEALS OF COURTS AND TRIBUNALS – JURISDICTION GENERALLY – whether proceedings properly commenced

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (Qld), s 55, s 63, s 64, s 103 Retail Shop Leases Regulation 2016 (Qld), s 8, Schedule 1

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Parties

1. The applicants are the tenants of commercial premises at 15 Ellen St, Moorooka. They formerly conducted a business at the premise, which they describe in the filed application as “retail window furnishings”. The respondent is the landlord.

Relief sought

1. Applications for both interim and final relief have been filed.

2. The relief claimed in the application is unclear. For example, “[M]ake the landlord stop his campaign of harassment and intimidation against us while we are moving out of the premises at …”. Further relief sought is expressed as “…make the landlord accept the exit report we have put together as well as our photos that show the true condition of the building”.

3. It appears from the material filed that the applicants have vacated the premises but remain in dispute with the respondent landlord. The exact nature of the dispute is unclear.

Jurisdiction

1. The jurisdiction of QCAT must be found in statute, either the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“QCAT Act”) or an enabling act. In the present case, the enabling act is the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (Qld) (“RSLA”). The RSLA and the Retail Shop Leases Regulation 2016 (Qld) (“Regulation”) provide specific mechanisms to resolve certain disputes between qualifying tenants and landlords. Not all disputes between commercial tenants and landlords may be resolved by the Tribunal.

2. There are two matters before the Tribunal for determination, being an application for interim order and an application for final orders. First, the applicants have filed an application for interim order. The orders sought by way of interim relief are identical to those sought in the application for final orders. To the extent that the relief sought in either matter can be construed as relief in the form available in the Tribunal, it seems that the relief sought is final relief by way of injunctions and declarations. As stated above, the precise form of the orders sought is not clear.  It is apparent that such relief would not be available on an interim basis.

3. In a “response to directions” filed 9 April 2025 the applicants assert that the business conducted by them in the leased premises is “the supply of window furnishings, soft furnishings and accessories to retail customers”. That description appears to encompass a business falling within the definition of a “retail business” as defined in section 5C of the RSLA, when read in conjunction with Schedule 1 to the Regulation which identifies both “curtains” under the subheading “fabrics and other soft goods retailing”, and “blinds” under the subheading “furniture retailing”.

4. At this juncture I am satisfied for present purposes that the business conducted by the applicants is a retail business within the meaning of the RSLA.

5. The next issue is whether the prerequisite steps have been taken to invoke the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The RSLA provides two pathways to the Tribunal for a party to a retail tenancy dispute. The first pathway is the referral of a retail tenancy dispute by a mediator after an unsuccessful mediation.[1]  That did not occur in this matter as the application was made by the lessee. There was no referral by a mediator.

   [1]RSLA s 63.

6. The second pathway is an application to the Tribunal by a party, but only in circumstances where either (i) a mediation agreement has not been complied with, (ii) a mediator refuses to refer a dispute to the Tribunal, or (iii) a court has ordered the transfer of the proceeding to the Tribunal.[2] 

   [2]Ibid s 64.

7. Common to both pathways is a requirement in Part 8 Division 2 of the RSLA for a party to a retail tenancy dispute who wishes to apply to the Tribunal to resolve the dispute, to comply with the provisions relating to pre-proceedings dispute resolution with the Queensland Small Business Commissioner (“QSBC”).

8. There does not appear to have been any attempt by the applicants to comply with Part 8 Division 2 of the RSLA. That is, the applicants do not appear to have lodged a notice of dispute with the QSBC,[3] nor has a mediator nominated by the QSBC referred the dispute to the Tribunal.[4]

   [3]Ibid s 55.

   [4]Ibid s 63.

9. As stated earlier, a party to a retail tenancy dispute may apply to QCAT to resolve the dispute, but only if one of the avenues available in s 64(1)(a) is available (i.e. a party to a mediation agreement has not complied with the agreement, a mediator refuses to refer the dispute to QCAT, or a court has ordered that a proceeding started in a court be removed to QCAT).

10. None of those avenues have been followed.

Disposition

1. The jurisdictional requirement that a retail tenancy dispute be referred to the Tribunal by mediator has not been complied with. The dispute has not been referred to the Tribunal by a mediator pursuant to s 63 of the RSLA. The applicants are unable to apply to QCAT pursuant to s 64 of the RSLA, because (i) there is no claim or evidence that the respondent has not complied with a mediation agreement; (ii) there is no evidence that a mediator has refused to refer a dispute to QCAT; (iii) no court has ordered that the proceeding be removed to QCAT from a court.

2. In the circumstances, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction, and the application and interim application are dismissed.