Tringas v Quach

In the matter of Tringas v Quach, the applicant sought to review a determination made by a specialist retail valuer in relation to a lease dispute. The applicant, Tringas, argued that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to make the determination as the business operated from the premises was not a prescribed business under the Retail Leases Act 1994, and thus the leased premises were not a retail shop. The respondent, Quach, maintained that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction and that the determination was valid. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had the requisite jurisdiction to make the determination in question. This hinged on whether the business operated from the premises was a prescribed business under the Retail Leases Act 1994 and if the leased premises were therefore a retail shop. A secondary issue was whether the valuation provided by the specialist retail valuer was valid and whether the applicant had acted within the appropriate timeframe to seek a review of the determination.

The court found that the business conducted from the premises was indeed a prescribed business under the Act, and thus the Tribunal did have jurisdiction to make the determination. The court further found that the valuation provided by the specialist retail valuer was valid, and that the applicant had not acted within the appropriate timeframe to seek a review of the determination. As such, the application for review was dismissed, and the application for an extension of time to seek such a review was also refused. The court did, however, grant leave to either party to apply for an order for costs, with any such application to be made within 28 days. Absent such an application, there would be no order as to costs.

The final orders of the court were to declare that the Tribunal had jurisdiction, that the valuation was valid, and that the application for review was dismissed. The court also refused the application for an extension of time to seek a review and granted leave to either party to apply for an order for costs, with any such application to be made within 28 days. Absent such an application, there would be no order as to costs.