Trigenis v L J Hooker Salisbury
[2016] QCATA 51
•12 April 2016
| CITATION: | Trigenis v L J Hooker Salisbury [2016] QCATA 51 |
| PARTIES: | Peter Trigenis (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| L J Hooker Salisbury (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL380 -15 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member Stilgoe OAM |
| DELIVERED ON: | 12 April 2016 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Leave to appeal refused |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – RESIDENTIAL TENANCY - whether grounds for leave to appeal 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
Peter Trigenis moved into his sister’s property. It was always Ms Trigenis’ intention that Mr Trigenis pay rent, so she engaged L J Hooker Salisbury to manage the tenancy. Mr Trigenis never paid rent. L J Hooker issued a notice to remedy breach and then a notice to leave. Mr Trigenis did not pay rent, so L J Hooker applied to the tribunal for a termination of the tenancy. The tribunal terminated the tenancy on 25 August 2015.
Mr Trigenis wants to appeal that decision. Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.[1] 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.[2]
[1]QCAT Act, s 142(3)(a)(i).
[2]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 at [3].
Mr Trigenis’ submissions in support of his application for leave to appeal are not helpful. He has revised the story in Revelations, explaining that various characters, including members of his family, are the “ten horns of the living serpent”. Mr Trigenis may be unhappy with his family, and even with L J Hooker, but he has not pointed to any error by the tribunal, any error of fact or any ground that might be the basis for a successful application.
I have considered the evidence. I read the transcript. There is nothing in the transcript to persuade me that the tribunal should have taken a different view of the facts. There is no reasonably arguable case that the tribunal was in error. Leave to appeal should be refused.
0