Thomas v Hooper (No 2)

[2025] QCATA 120

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Thomas v Hooper (No 2) [2025] QCATA 120

PARTIES:

MARK THOMAS

(first applicant)

GERALDINE NAVARRETE

(second applicant)

v

MICHAEL HOOPER

(first respondent)

SIOBHAN HOOPER

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL082-23

MATTER TYPE:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

18 November 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Stilgoe OAM

ORDER/S:

1.   Leave to appeal is granted.

2.   The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – APPEALS – where a tenancy agreement was terminated for objectionable behaviour – where the tenants sought leave to appeal the decision of the Tribunal below – where the tenancy agreement has since ended and the appellants have vacated the property – whether the Tribunal below erred by not providing procedural fairness – whether there is any utility in allowing an appeal relating to a tenancy agreement that has since ended

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 3, s 142
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 297

Holman v Campbell [2024] QCA 176, cited
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294, followed
Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82, applied

APPEARANCES:

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. Mark Thomas and Geraldine Navarrete had been tenants of the Hoopers’ property since 2019.

2. On 1 March 2023, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy due to objectionable behaviour under s 297 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008.

3. The tenants want to appeal that decision. They say that they were not able to present their case, or put forward evidence of the true facts. They say there was a denial of procedural fairness on the basis that they sought to put forward evidence in the form of a police record of an incident which would have shed a different light on a matter in issue before the Tribunal.

4. They also say that Ms Navarrete did not have the opportunity to put her case at the hearing, and that the Hoopers had failed to accept an offer to vacate which gave Mr Thomas and Ms Navarrete more time to leave. It was also submitted that since then there had been no more problems with the neighbours.

5. The Hoopers did not action the Tribunal’s termination. Instead, the tenancy ended on 8 February 2024 through the effluxion of time.

6. An appeal of a tenancy matter is a minor civil dispute[1] which requires leave to appeal.[2] Leave is usually granted where it appears that there is a reasonable argument that an error was made such that an appeal would be required to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant that was caused by the error.[3]

   [1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) Sch 3.

   [2]Ibid s 142(3)(a)(i).

   [3]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 [3], as followed in Holman v Campbell [2024] QCA 176 [39].

Was there a denial of procedural fairness?

1. The tenants submit that ‘the core issue of this case extends beyond the termination’, and that ‘the unresolved underlying issues leave the applicants without a formal resolution or remedy for their concerns’.

2. They, fairly loosely, submit that there were procedural injustices that occurred during the 1 March 2023 hearing, including that the Tribunal below, in directing that the lease be terminated, was ‘significantly influenced’ by Mr Thomas’ behaviour in the hearing.

3. I agree with the tenants that the hearing below would have been frustrating.

4. At the commencement of a directions hearing on 15 December 2022, the following exchange occurred:[4]

   [4]Transcript (15 December 2023) T1-3, L14-42.

   MR THOMAS: Yes, sir. Honour – your Honour, I have – do have a question first, if I may sir. There’s four antagonists in this room that are not party to - - -

   HIS HONOUR: Can you - - -

   MR THOMAS:   - - - this matter.

   HIS HONOUR: - - - stop talking? Look, I’m the one who controls what’s - - -

   MR THOMAS:   Well, I checked with - - -

   HIS HONOUR: - - - going on in this room.

   MR THOMAS:   - - - the register, your Honour, that I had to - - -

   HIS HONOUR: No, just stop - - -

   MR THOMAS:   - - - address you.

   HIS HONOUR: - - - talking

   MR THOMAS:   Yes, sir.

   HIS HONOUR: So the first thing you’ve done, when you’ve tried to talk to me, you tried to inflame the situation.

   MR THOMAS:   Not at all, sir.

   HIS HONOUR: No, you have.

5. Similarly, at the hearing on 1 March 2023, the Member believed it appropriate to preface that he was ‘running the show’ and that if Mr Thomas did not ‘behave’ he would rule against him.[5] The Member repeatedly intervened in cross-examination[6] and made mocking comments about Mr Thomas.[7] Concerningly, the decision to terminate the Tenancy Agreement came abruptly after a charged exchange with Mr Thomas wherein the Member said: ‘I’m not going to listen to it anymore’.[8]

   [5]T1-4, L6-14.

   [6]T1-21, L31-46; T1-22.

   [7]T1-35, L40-45.

   [8]T1-38, L26-46; T1-39, L1-12.

6. I am satisfied that that Tribunal below erred in failing to provide the tenants procedural fairness during their hearing by presupposing that Mr Thomas would be a difficult advocate. Even when considering that the Tribunal ought to conduct its proceedings economically, informally and quickly,[9] I can see no reasonable basis for such conduct of a decision-maker in this Tribunal.

   [9] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 3.

7. It is disappointing that the tenants, as respondents to an application to terminate a lease for a tenanted property they had lived in for 4 years, were not provided the benefit of a fair hearing. The answer to whether the Tribunal below fell into error is simply that procedural fairness was denied and is not concerned with degree.[10]

   [10]Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82 [17], [59].

8. Leave to appeal is granted.

Can the Appeal Tribunal correct this error?

1. The second question I must answer is whether this appeal could correct a substantial injustice that was caused by the error.

2. The tenants submit that the 1 March 2023 hearing left various underlying issues unresolved. However, they also submit that they ‘have no intention to be reinstated to the property for understandable reasons’. They seek no relief other than ‘to have [their] chance to speak in Court’.

3. Unfortunately, I can see no utility in allowing an appeal where the tenancy agreement the subject of the dispute is no longer on foot.

4. Although I accept that the manner in which the Member conducted the hearing below was not ideal, there is no longer an opportunity for the tenants to air their grievances and, therefore, the closure they seek. There is no prospect of substantive relief on appeal and no evidence that the tenants will suffer a substantial injustice if the appeal is not allowed.

5. For those reasons, I direct that:

   (a)Leave to appeal is granted.

   (b)The appeal is dismissed.