Smith v Pilmore

[2022] QCATA 49

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Smith v Pilmore  [2022] QCATA 49

PARTIES:

DEBORAH SMITH

(applicant/appellant)

v

DARYL PILMORE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL059-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT 88/19 Noosa

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

26 April 2022

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC

ORDERS:

Application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against the decision of the Tribunal of 10 January 2020 is refused.   

CATCHWORDS:

LANDLORD AND TENANT – RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES LEGISLATION – JURISDICTION – agreement to rent room in house – whether rooming accommodation agreement – whether covered by legislation – whether residential tenancy agreement – whether Tribunal given jurisdiction under legislation

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – jurisdiction of Tribunal – whether given by Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2009 (Qld) – whether given by Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2011 (Qld)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 11, s 12

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2009 (Qld) s 12, s 16, s 32, s 43, s 44(1)(a)

Mann v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd [2012] QCATA 142

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Prior to 8 October 2019 the appellant rented a room in the respondent’s house from the respondent.[1]  There was no written tenancy agreement.  After the appellant vacated the room, the respondent brought a claim against her in the Tribunal for $1,394.50, including the filing fee.  Following a hearing on 10 January 2020 a Member[2] ordered the appellant to pay the respondent $879.20.  By this application the appellant seeks leave to appeal against that decision.

   [1]For convenience I shall refer to Ms Smith as the appellant and Mr Pilmore as the respondent.

   [2]An Acting Magistrate sitting as a Member under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“the QCAT Act”) s 171(2).

2. Because this matter was a minor civil dispute, leave is required to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal.[3]  As a general proposition, when leave to appeal is required, it will be granted only where there is a reasonable argument that the decision was attended by error and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice caused by that error, or where the appeal raises a question of general importance upon which further argument and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal would be to the public advantage.[4] In deciding whether grounds for leave to appeal have been shown, it is relevant to consider that the proceeding was a minor civil dispute, and the obligation on the Tribunal was to make orders it considered to be fair and equitable to the parties to the proceeding in order to resolve the dispute: the QCAT Act s 13(1). The Tribunal was also required to comply with the QCAT Act s 28 and s 29.…