Shoot v Pine Lake Management Services Pty Ltd - [2024] QCAT 268

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Shoot v Pine Lake Management Services Pty Ltd [2024] QCAT 268

PARTIES:

DEBRA SHOOT

(applicant)

v

PINE LAKE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCL022-24

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

18 June 2024

HEARING DATE:

29 May 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

A/Deputy President Brown

ORDERS:

1. Application for miscellaneous matters filed 9 May 2024 refused.

CATCHWORDS:

INTERPRETATION – GENERAL RULES AND CONSTRUCTION OF INSTRUMENTS - Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld) - where respondent purported to terminate the residence contract between the applicant and the respondent – where respondent says the applicant no longer has a right to reside in the retirement village and has no standing to bring tribunal proceeding on the basis that the applicant is not a resident – where the applicant says it would be contrary to the intention of the enabling act to preclude individuals who have had their residence contracts terminated from seeking relief in the tribunal –– whether a resident under a residence contract terminated by a retirement village operator may apply to the tribunal for relief

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld)

s 32A
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
s 3, s 4, s 60
Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld)

s 21, s 22, s 53, s 167, s 169, s 191, s 192

Conde v Guilfoyle [2010] QCA 109 [2009] QCCTRV 2.

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (NSW) v Mutton (1988) 12 NSWLR 104
Filmer & Others Per Schedule A as in Application lodged on 24 November 2008 v Carlyle Gardens Retirement Village Pty Ltd [2009] QCCTRV 2
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28
Saunders v Roberts [2016] QCATA 145

Tjungarrayi v Western Australia [2019] HCA 12

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Mr M May instructed by Cronin Miller Litigation

Respondent:

Ms E Hoiberg instructed by Thomson Geer

REASONS FOR DECISION

This proceeding is about the right of the applicant to reside in a retirement village. The applicant has commenced this proceeding seeking orders, inter alia, that the respondent be prevented from terminating the applicant’s residence contract, removing her from the village and depriving the applicant of her right to reside in the village.
The respondent has applied to have the proceeding dismissed on the basis that the applicant is no longer a ‘resident’ of the village and is therefore not entitled to bring the proceeding. If the proceeding is not dismissed the respondent says the matter should be transferred to the Supreme Court.
The respondent’s application falls to be determined.
The Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld) (‘RV Act’)
The RV Act deals with the establishment and operation of retirement villages. It is useful to refer to a number of provisions in the RV Act relevant to the present application.
Section 9 provides that a ‘resident’ of a retirement village is a person who has a right to reside in the retirement village and a right to receive 1 or…

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 Shoot v Pine Lake Management Services Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Shoot v Pine Lake Management Services Pty Ltd [2024] QCAT 268
Case: [2024] QCAT 268
Decision Date: 18 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Shoot v Pine Lake Management Services Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the applicant, who sought relief under the Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld), and the respondent, a retirement village operator. The applicant's residence contract had been terminated by the respondent, who asserted that the termination meant the applicant no longer had the right to reside in the retirement village and thus lacked standing to bring proceedings in the tribunal. The applicant argued that it would contravene the intent of the Act to deny individuals who had their residence contracts terminated the ability to seek relief in the tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether a resident under a residence contract terminated by a retirement village operator could apply to the tribunal for relief. The court considered the interpretation and construction of the relevant provisions in the Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld) to determine the scope of the tribunal's jurisdiction. The respondent contended that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction once a residence contract was terminated, while the applicant argued that the tribunal should have jurisdiction to comprehensively deal with the dispute, including addressing the legality of the termination.

The court concluded that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to comprehensively address the dispute, including the legality of the contract termination. The reasoning was based on the interpretation that it would be contrary to the intent of the Act to preclude individuals who have had their residence contracts terminated from seeking relief in the tribunal. The court found that transferring the proceeding to the Supreme Court was neither necessary nor desirable, affirming the tribunal's jurisdiction. The application was subsequently refused, and the orders included the dismissal of the application for miscellaneous matters filed on 9 May 2024.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for miscellaneous matters filed 9 May 2024 refused.

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

It follows that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to comprehensively deal with the dispute and the transfer of the proceeding to the Supreme Court is neither a necessary nor a desirable outcome. Conclusion The application is refused.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.