Rosily v Gent

Case [2024] QCATA 96

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Rosily v Gent  [2024] QCATA 96

PARTIES:
GILA GOLDA ROSILY

(applicant/appellant)

v
JOEL AARON GENT AND JAIDY ROSE LYNN GLOVER

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL140-23

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

T27/23 Beenleigh

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

1 October 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC

ORDERS:

1.     Leave to appeal granted. 

2.     Appeal allowed. 

3.     Decision of the Tribunal of 9 May 2023 in this matter set aside. 

4.     Matter remitted to the Tribunal for rehearing before a person different from the adjudicator who conducted the first hearing. 

5.     No order as to costs. 

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – Minor civil dispute – conduct of hearing - breach of the rules of natural justice – bias – apparent bias – failure to comply with statutory requirements – decision set aside – new hearing ordered

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 28(2), (3)(a), (d), (e), s 29, s 126(2), s 219(5)

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 88(5), s 188(4), s 280(1)(a), s 280

Antoun v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 497
Chandra v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCA 335
Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design and Developments Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 577
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Hansen v Patrick [2018] QCA 298
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427
Star Training Academy Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police [2023] NSWSC 153
Tuck v Kanti-Paul [2024] QCATA 57

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)

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. On 13 January 2023 the appellant filed in the Tribunal at Beenleigh an application for a minor civil dispute – residential tenancies dispute against the respondents, claiming a total of $9,202.20, largely for damages, and for payment of the rental bond of $2,000 in part satisfaction.[1]  The matter came on for hearing before an adjudicator at Beenleigh on 9 May 2023, and at the end of the hearing the adjudicator ordered that the bond be paid, as to $500 to the appellant, and as to the balance, to the respondents.  No order was made about the balance of the appellant’s claim, but it follows from the transcript that it was rejected by the adjudicator.  The tenancy was governed by the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (“the Act”).

    [1]For my convenience I shall refer to Ms Rosily as the appellant, to Mr Gent as the respondent, and to Mr Gent and Ms Glover collectively as the rspondents. 

  2. On 13 May 2023 the appellant filed in the Tribunal an application for leave to appeal from the decision of the adjudicator.  Submissions and extensive material was filed by the appellant, not only material which was before the Tribunal at first instance.  No submissions…

Continue reading Rosily v Gent

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rosily v Gent [2024] QCATA 96
Case
[2024] QCATA 96
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rosily v Gent involved a dispute that was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The appellant, Rosily, contested a decision made by the Tribunal concerning a minor civil dispute. The crux of the matter revolved around the conduct of the Tribunal during the hearing process, specifically whether there was a breach of the rules of natural justice, including an issue of apparent bias and failure to comply with statutory requirements. The respondent, Gent, defended the Tribunal's conduct and decision.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal's actions during the hearing constituted a breach of natural justice, and if so, whether this warranted the setting aside of the Tribunal's decision. The court needed to determine if the adjudicator's conduct exhibited apparent bias and if the Tribunal failed to adhere to necessary statutory obligations. The appellant argued that the Tribunal did not follow proper procedures and that the adjudicator's behaviour created an appearance of bias, thus invalidating the decision.

The court found that the adjudicator's conduct indeed breached the principles of natural justice. It was determined that the adjudicator's actions and demeanour during the hearing created an appearance of bias, which was significant enough to undermine the fairness of the process. Additionally, the court found that the Tribunal failed to comply with certain statutory requirements, which further contributed to the invalidity of the decision. Consequently, the decision of the Tribunal dated 9 May 2023 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a rehearing before a different adjudicator. The court did not make any order regarding costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. Decision of the Tribunal of 9 May 2023 in this matter set aside.

4. Matter remitted to the Tribunal for rehearing before a person different from the adjudicator who conducted the first hearing.

5. No order as to costs.

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.