Smith v Department of Housing Public Works

[2013] QCATA 215

CITATION: Smith & Anor v Department of Housing Public Works [2013] QCATA 215

PARTIES:	Mr Mark R Smith Ms Melody R Hema (Applicants)
V
Department of Housing Public Works (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL187-13

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Hon K Cullinane AM QC, Judicial Member

DELIVERED ON: 23 July 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application is refused.

2. The stay of the warrant of possession is lifted.

CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – RESIDENTIAL TENANCY – where tenants given notice to leave – where tenants did not leave the premises after the handover date – where Tribunal issued warrant of possession in respect of premises – where tenants seek to appeal that decision – whether leave to appeal should be granted

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.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Applicants seek leave to appeal against a decision of the Tribunal delivered on 22 April 2013 ordering the issue of a warrant of possession in respect of certain premises at Tewantin.

2. Leave is required pursuant to s 142(3)(a)(ii) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. For leave to be granted some good reason has to be shown. This might be because the matter raises an issue of general importance or because leave should be granted to prevent an injustice occurring.

3. The Applicants had been in receipt of housing assistance from the Department in respect of the premises.

4. The Department determined that the Applicants were no longer eligible for housing assistance and by notice dated 16 January 2013 gave the applicants notice to leave by 22 March 2013.  The notice was given pursuant to the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (‘the Act’).

5. The Applicants were informed of the steps open to them if they wished to dispute the matter. They were informed that if they failed to leave an application would be made under the Act to the Tribunal for termination and the issue of a warrant of possession.

6. The Applicants did not respond to the notice and remained in occupation after the 22 March 2013.

7. They have since provided some information relating to the male Applicant’s earnings and his health.  This information would not seem on its face to provide any answer to the Respondent’s entitlement to take the steps it has.

8. The Tribunal held that the notice to leave had been validly given and ordered a warrant of possession to issue. These steps were taken by the Respondent pursuant to a right to do so under the Act.

9. The matter does not raise any question nor does it have any feature which would justify the grant of leave.

10. The application is refused.