Tuck v Kanti-Paul

[2024] QCATA 57

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Tuck v Kanti-Paul  [2024] QCATA 57

PARTIES:

STUART TUCK

(applicant/appellant)

v

REZAN TROY KANTI-PAUL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL251-22

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCT182-22 Cairns

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

12 June 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC

ORDERS:

1.     Leave to the applicant to appeal from the decision of the Tribunal of 22 August 2022.

2.     Allow the appeal.

3.     Set aside the decision of the Tribunal of 22 August 2022. 

4.     Order that the proceeding be remitted to the Tribunal for rehearing by a different person from the magistrate who conducted the original hearing. 

5.     There be no order as to the costs of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS — QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL — application for leave to appeal from decision in minor civil dispute — failure to give reasons — leave granted — failure to accord parties natural justice at hearing — failure to identify relevant issues — decision set aside — remitted for rehearing  

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 3(b), s 4(c), s 28(3), s 121(4)

Bakker v Richards Projects Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 99
McVicker v Bunnings Group Ltd [2021] QCATA 88
Van Zyl v Rentstar [2021] QCATA 120

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: 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. This is an application for leave to appeal from the decision of a magistrate[1] in a minor civil claim – tenancy dispute, who determined to whom the rental bond was to be paid.  The appellant was for a time the tenant of the respondent in residential premises in Cairns, which came to an end on 26 May 2022.[2]  There was a rental bond of $1,600 held by the Residential Tenancy Authority (“RTA”) and on 12 July 2022 the appellant filed an application in the Tribunal seeking an order that the full amount of the bond be paid to him. 

   [1]Sitting as a Member under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“the QCAT Act”) s 171(2).

   [2]I shall refer to Mr Tuck as the appellant, and Mr Kanti-Paul as the respondent. 

2. On 22 August 2022 the magistrate ordered that the bond be paid, as to $1,075.30 to the respondent, and as to the balance of $524.70, to the appellant.  On the same day the appellant filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal from that decision, and on 2 September filed an application to stay the decision pending the hearing and determination of that application.  I dismissed that application on 8 February 2023: Tuck v Kanti-Paul [2023] QCATA 4. At that time, I did not have available a transcript of the hearing, or any reasons of the magistrate. I now have the former.

Proceeding at First Instance

1. At the hearing the respondent sought to claim against the bond…