Veness v Brettle

[2015] QCATA 4

CITATION: Veness v Brettle [2015] QCATA 4

PARTIES:	Katrina Sheree Veness (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Wayne Anthony Brettle (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL503-14

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Senior Member Stilgoe OAM

DELIVERED ON: 12 January 2015

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.    Application for a stay of the decision dated 20 October 2014 refused.

CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES – REPRESENTATION – STAY – where application for representation granted without hearing from the respondent – where application for stay – whether stay appropriate

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

1. Mark Brettle rented a house to Wayne Brettle. At some time during the tenancy, Ms Veness was added as a lessor.

2. At the end of the tenancy, Wayne applied for the return of the bond. He also applied for leave to be represented by Mrs Josey. He submitted that Mrs Josey was a family member but was ‘non-emotional and has no benefit of the outcome’. He also noted that she had a good understanding of the emotional effect of this dispute on Wayne and his family. On 20 October 2014, an Adjudicator granted the application for leave for representation without taking submissions from Mark.

3. Ms Veness wants to appeal that decision. She has also applied for a stay of the decision.

4. Normally, the failure to take submissions from an interested party would be a good ground for appeal and would justify a stay. However, there are three reasons why I refuse to grant a stay in this dispute.

5. Firstly, by order of 15 December 2014, the issue of representation is again at large. The learned Adjudicator ordered that the dispute be re-listed before another Adjudicator for directions that may include any orders about representation.

6. Secondly, although Ms Veness’ application refers to intimidation by Mrs Josey and Mrs Josey’s lack of independence, and even though she has foreshadowed an affidavit about these matters, there is nothing before the tribunal or the appeal tribunal. Given that the issue of representation is again to be decided, and Ms Veness has the opportunity of filing material to support her submissions, there is no present detriment in letting the original decision lie.

7. Thirdly, there are numerous applications on the file for Ms Veness to appear by remote conferencing. If Ms Veness appears by telephone, there will be almost no risk of intimidation.

8. The bond dispute is clearly one between family members. It may be that both parties are better served by having independent representation. Because that decision is open to the Adjudicator who will next hear this dispute, there is no need for the appeals tribunal to intervene.