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

Mark Thomas and Geraldine Navarrete had been tenants of the Hoopers’ property since 2019.
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.
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.
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.
The Hoopers did not action the Tribunal’s termination. Instead, the tenancy ended on 8 February 2024 through the effluxion of time.
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…

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 Thomas v Hooper (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Thomas v Hooper (No 2) [2025] QCATA 120
Case: [2025] QCATA 120
Decision Date: 18 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Thomas and Hooper, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), which had upheld the termination of their tenancy for objectionable behaviour. The tenancy agreement had since ended, and the appellants had vacated the property. The central legal issue before the court was whether QCAT had erred in not providing procedural fairness when handling the appeal, and whether there was any utility in allowing an appeal in relation to a tenancy agreement that had already ended.

The court examined the principles of procedural fairness, noting that while the appeal was brought after the tenancy had ended, the issues raised were of significant public interest. The court highlighted the importance of procedural fairness in administrative tribunals, particularly in relation to the handling of appeals. The court also considered the utility of allowing the appeal, despite the tenancy agreement having ended. The court found that the appellants had raised substantial questions of law that had the potential to influence future cases, even though the specific tenancy had concluded.

In light of the significant public interest and the potential impact on future cases, the court granted the appellants leave to appeal. The court reasoned that allowing the appeal was necessary to address the issues of procedural fairness and the broader legal principles involved, despite the tenancy agreement having terminated. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that administrative tribunals adhere to procedural fairness and that appeals are considered on their merits, even when the specific circumstances of the case have changed.

The court’s final order was that leave to appeal be granted, allowing the appellants to challenge the QCAT decision on the grounds of procedural fairness and the broader legal issues raised. This decision ensures that the principles of procedural fairness and the broader legal implications of the case can be examined, even in cases where the specific tenancy agreement has ended.

Orders