Taylor v Department of Housing and Public Works

[2014] QCATA 106

CITATION: Taylor v Department of Housing & Public Works [2014] QCATA 106

PARTIES:	Kelly Ann Taylor (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Department of Housing & Public Works (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL112 -14

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Senior Member Stilgoe, OAM

DELIVERED ON: 5 May 2014

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.    Leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES – where tenant 9 weeks in arrears – where tenant paid most of arrears the day before hearing – where tribunal terminated tenancy agreement - whether grounds for leave to appeal

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 337(3)

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

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 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 26 February 2014, the tribunal terminated Ms Taylor’s tenancy agreement. At the date of filing the claim, the Department was owed $2,401.84. Apart from two payments in November 2013, Ms Taylor had not paid rent since October 2013.

2. Ms Taylor wants to appeal the tribunal’s decision. Her only ground of appeal is that she had paid the rent up to date prior to the hearing and she wants to avoid homelessness.

3. Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary. The principles the appeals tribunal applies when considering an application for leave to appeal are as summarised by Keane JA (as His Honour then was) in Pickering v McArthur[1]:

   There are numerous authorities, in varying language but with unvarying emphasis, that leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.

   [1][2005] QCA 294 at [3].

4. The transcript shows that the learned Adjudicator was aware that Ms Taylor had made a payment prior to the hearing[2]. Ms Taylor was still in arrears. The learned Adjudicator was also aware that the Department told Ms Taylor it would be pressing for a termination based on Ms Taylor’s rental history[3].

   [2]Transcript page 1-2, line 36.

   [3]Transcript page 1-2, lines 37-39.

5. Ms Taylor has not pointed to any error by the learned Adjudicator. The tribunal may consider a range of matters when deciding to terminate a tenancy agreement[4]. Ms Taylor’s breaches were recurrent and frequent. She owed nine weeks’ rent. Her steps to remedy the breach were too little and too late. The learned Adjudicator exercised her discretion appropriately and I can find no compelling reason to come to a different view.

   [4]Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 337(3).

1. There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Adjudicator was in error. Leave to appeal should be refused.