Scanlan v Don
[2013] QCATA 331
•26 November 2013
| CITATION: | Scanlan v Don [2013] QCATA 331 |
| PARTIES: | Mrs Lote Scanlan (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Sonora Don (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL353 -13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member Stilgoe OAM |
| DELIVERED ON: | 26 November 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Leave to appeal refused |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – whether grounds for leave to appeal Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41 McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
The appeal tribunal heard and determined this matter on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Ms Scanlan moved into a house at Marsden in January 2013. On 9 July 2013, an Adjudicator terminated Ms Scanlan’s tenancy. At that time, she owed the lessor $2,365 rent.
Ms Scanlan wants to appeal the learned Adjudicator’s decision. She does not point to any error by the learned Adjudicator at the hearing. Instead, she explains why she did not attend the tribunal hearing and asks the appeal tribunal to allow a plan to pay off the rent arrears.
Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary. The question whether or not leave to appeal should be granted is usually addressed according to established principles. Is there a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision?[1] Is there a reasonable prospect that the applicant will obtain substantive relief?[2] Is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice caused by some error?[3] Is there a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the appeals tribunal, would be to the public advantage?[4]
[1]QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[2]Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 at 2.
[3]QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[4]Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 at 389; McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577 at 578, 580.
Ms Scanlan did not ask for an adjournment of the hearing. She did not apply to attend by telephone. She did not ask for a reopening of the hearing. She filed the application for leave to appeal two days before the warrant of possession was to be executed. She does not deny that she owed rent. Ms Scanlan has asked the tribunal for the wrong relief at the wrong time. She has not pointed to any error by the learned Adjudicator in making his decision and I can find no error.
The learned Adjudicator was right to terminate the tenancy. There is no question of general importance that should be determined by the appeals tribunal. There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Adjudicator was in error. There is no reasonable prospect of substantive relief on appeal. There is no evidence that a substantial injustice will result if leave is not granted. Leave to appeal should be refused.
0