Salucci v Ray White Real Estate, Mt Isa

[2015] QCATA 75

CITATION: Salucci v Ray White Real Estate, Mt Isa [2015] QCATA 75

PARTIES:	Steven Salucci (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Ray White Real Estate, Mt Isa (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL017 -15

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Justice Thomas, President

DELIVERED ON: 12 June 2015

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.    Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES – where tenancy terminated for failure to pay rent and damage to tenancy – where tenant admits damage and rent arrears – where no error at first instance - whether grounds for leave to appeal

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 32, 142(3)(a)(i)

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr Steven Salucci rented a house through Ray White Real Estate, Mt Isa. During the tenancy, Mr Salucci removed some kitchen bench tops, cupboard doors, a wardrobe, shower panelling, floor tiles and a toilet cistern. Then he fell behind in his rent. Ray White filed an application for termination of Mr Salucci’s tenancy. A Magistrate, sitting in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the tribunal, did terminate Mr Salucci’s tenancy.

2. Mr Salucci wants to appeal that decision. Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.[1] Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.[2]

   [1]QCAT Act s 142(3)(a)(i).

   [2]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 at [3].

3. In his application for leave to appeal, Mr Salucci admits that he was behind in his rent. He admits that he removed items from the tenancy without approval. He does not point to any error by the learned Magistrate but he submits that he wants to stay in the property, he is at risk of being homeless and that he can rectify his breaches of the tenancy agreement given time.

4. None of these submissions demonstrated that there is an error by the tribunal, and so there is no reason why the appeal tribunal should set the decision aside on an appeal.

1. There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Magistrate was in error. There is no reasonable prospect of substantive relief on appeal. Leave to appeal is refused.