Russo v Prince Realty - [2019] QCATA 83

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Russo v Prince Realty [2019] QCATA 83

PARTIES:

MELISSA RUSSO
(applicant)

v

PRINCE REALTY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL295-18

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT214/16   Holland Park

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

6 June 2019

HEARING DATE:

5 June 2019

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr J R Forbes, Member

ORDERS:

1              The application for extension of time is dismissed.

2              No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – PROCEDURE – TIME, EXTENSION AND ABRIDGMENT – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE - where two years delay in filing application for leave to appeal - whether grounds to extend time – where extension refused

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 3, 4, 32, 61, 102, 143

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 at 217; [2009] HCA 27

Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403; [1994] HCA 14
Campbell v Flucker [2010] QCATA 70

Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1

Herrington v McHugh [2011] QCATA 288

Pappas v Meikeljohn’s Accountants [2017] QCATA 60

Payne v APN News & Media [2016] QCATA 140

Penney v Clarke [2016] QCATA 121

Reeve v Hamlyn [2015] QCATA 133

Robinson v Corr [2011] QCATA 302
The Pot Man Pty Ltd v Reaoch [2011] QCATA 318
Uren v Harcourts Broadbeach Waters [2018] QCATA 9
Von Reisner v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) (2009) 262 ALR 430; [2009] FCAFC 172

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

It is a truth universally acknowledged that litigants of a certain disposition tend to transmute a simple matter into a procedural morass of ever more voluminous documentation. After an initial burst of activity the matter may long lie fallow, only to be reagitated to the prejudice of a party and to the efficient administration of justice.
On or about 7 June 2015 the parties entered into a residential tenancy agreement relating to premises at McGregor, Brisbane.
Subsequently, as it appears, the applicant (`Russo’) – lawfully or otherwise - sublet parts of the premises to persons described as students. This not be pursued.
It was a term of the agreement that the respondent Prince Realty might sue or be sued, on behalf of the owner of the subject premises, in relation thereto.[1]
[1]Clause 43.
On 13 September 2016 the tribunal ordered the applicant (‘Russo’) to pay Prince Realty the sum of $4,686.95 for arrears of rent and compensation.
On 8 November 2018 Russo filed the present application for leave to appeal against that decision, and an application for extension of time to appeal.
Should time be extended?
The normal time limit for an application for leave to appeal is 28 days[2] after the `relevant day’, as defined in section 143(5). It follows that the application for leave is approximately two years and two months out of time. However, Russo now asks 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.

Continue reading Russo v Prince Realty

Details

AGLC: Russo v Prince Realty [2019] QCATA 83
Case: [2019] QCATA 83
Decision Date: 6 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are Russo and Prince Realty. The dispute concerns an application by Russo to extend the time for filing an application for leave to appeal, which was delayed by two years. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The central legal issues revolved around whether there were sufficient grounds to justify extending the time limit for filing the application for leave to appeal, and if the delay was due to exceptional circumstances.

The court examined the reasons for the delay and whether they amounted to exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension. The court noted that the delay was significant, and the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court held that the delay was not due to exceptional circumstances and, therefore, there were no grounds to extend the time limit. The court also found that the delay had caused inconvenience to the respondent and that the application for an extension of time should be dismissed.

In summary, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia dismissed the application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal. The court found that the delay was not due to exceptional circumstances and, therefore, there were no grounds to extend the time limit. The court did not make any order as to costs. The decision serves as a reminder to litigants to ensure that they comply with the time limits for filing applications and appeals, and that any delay must be justified by exceptional circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 The application for extension of time is dismissed.

2 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.

CITATION:	Russo v Prince Realty [2019] QCATA 83
PARTIES:	MELISSA RUSSO (applicant)
v
PRINCE REALTY (respondent)
APPLICATION NO:	APL295-18
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	MCDT214/16 Holland Park
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	6 June 2019
HEARING DATE:	5 June 2019
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Dr J R Forbes, Member
ORDERS:	1 The application for extension of time is dismissed. 2 No order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – PROCEDURE – TIME, EXTENSION AND ABRIDGMENT – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE - where two years delay in filing application for leave to appeal - whether grounds to extend time – where extension refused Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 3, 4, 32, 61, 102, 143 Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 at 217; [2009] HCA 27 Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403; [1994] HCA 14 Campbell v Flucker [2010] QCATA 70 Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1 Herrington v McHugh [2011] QCATA 288 Pappas v Meikeljohn’s Accountants [2017] QCATA 60 Payne v APN News & Media [2016] QCATA 140 Penney v Clarke [2016] QCATA 121 Reeve v Hamlyn [2015] QCATA 133 Robinson v Corr [2011] QCATA 302 The Pot Man Pty Ltd v Reaoch [2011] QCATA 318 Uren v Harcourts Broadbeach Waters [2018] QCATA 9 Von Reisner v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) (2009) 262 ALR 430; [2009] FCAFC 172
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).