Stringer v ILOOKProperty - [2023] QCATA 135

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Stringer v ILOOKProperty & Anor [2023] QCATA 135

PARTIES:

CHRISTOPHER STRINGER

(applicant/appellant)

v

GL PROPERTY GROUP PTY LTD (TRADING AS ILOOKPROPERTY)
(FIRST RESPONDENT)

AND

ORANGE CAKE PTY LTD

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL277-23

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT197/23 (Richlands)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

23 October 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lember

ORDERS:

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL TRIBNAL THAT:

1. The application for leave to appeal or appeal is dismissed pursuant to section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – where application for leave to appeal or appeal the termination of a residential tenancy– where stay applications refused and warrant executed – where grounds of appeal do not assert any error – where application to terminate was grounded upon failure to leave at the end of a fixed term tenancy

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32, s 47, s 143

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accomodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 293, s 326, s 340, s 426

Australian Coal and Shale Employees’ Federation v The Commonwealth (1999) 217 ALR 495

Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Rodgers v Rodgers (1964) 114 CLR 608
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577
QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41
Stringer v iLookProperty & Anor [2023] QCA 192

Symes v Kahler [2022] QCATA 35

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

What is this application about?

Mr Stringer seeks leave to appeal[1] a decision of the tribunal below made on 9 August 2023 to issue a termination order and warrant (MCDT197-23) (‘the decision’) on the various grounds of alleged dishonesty on the part of the managing agents, damage to the property during the tenancy, his ongoing contributions to maintaining the property during the tenancy, ‘theft of rental payments’ by the previous managing agent and his own health issues.
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 143(3) (‘QCAT Act’); Application for leave to appeal or appeal filed 29 August 2023.
As his application for leave to appeal or appeal currently stands:
(a)The Appeal Tribunal refused Mr Stringer’s application to stay the termination order and warrant by a decision made 11 September 2023, at which time the warrant was reissued to take effect on 14 September 2023 and to remain in effect until 27 September 2023.
(b)The Court of Appeal refused Mr Stringer’s application to stay the Appeal Tribunal’s order reissuing the warrant by a decision made 25 September 2023.
(c)The warrant has been…

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 Stringer v ILOOKProperty

Details

AGLC: Stringer v ILOOKProperty [2023] QCATA 135
Case: [2023] QCATA 135
Decision Date: 23 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Stringer v ILOOKProperty, the appellant, Stringer, sought to appeal the termination of a residential tenancy, which was enforced by the execution of a warrant. Stringer argued that the first respondent, ILOOKProperty, had wrongfully terminated the tenancy by entering into an agreement with the second respondent, who was to take possession of the property. The case was heard before the Queensland Appeal Tribunal.

The legal issues that arose in this case were whether the grounds of appeal correctly asserted any error and whether the tribunal had the right to grant leave to appeal or hear an appeal in these circumstances. The tribunal had to determine if there was a sufficient basis for an appeal and if the application was properly made under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

The tribunal found that the grounds of appeal did not assert any error, and the application to terminate the tenancy was grounded upon the failure to leave at the end of a fixed term tenancy. The tribunal also determined that the application for leave to appeal or appeal was not made in accordance with the Act. The tribunal held that it did not have the jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal or hear the appeal as the application did not meet the necessary requirements. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the application for leave to appeal or appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL TRIBNAL THAT:

1. The application for leave to appeal or appeal is dismissed pursuant to section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.