Vilums v Quinn
[2011] QCATA 82
•4 April 2011
| CITATION: | Vilums v Quinn [2011] QCATA 082 |
| PARTIES: | Mrs Anna Greta Vilums |
| v | |
| Mr Gregory Michael Quinn |
APPLICATION NUMBER: APL364-10
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
HEARING DATE: On the papers
HEARD AT: Brisbane
| DECISION OF: | Richard Oliver, Senior Member Peta Stilgoe, Member |
DELIVERED ON: 4 April 2011
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE: Leave to appeal refused.
| CATCHWORDS: | MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where consent order about termination of residential tenancy – where tenant sought to appeal termination order Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 142(3) |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member Richard Oliver
In this matter the Appeal Tribunal consisted of Ms Stilgoe, QCAT Member and me. I have had the benefit of reading her reasons in draft. I agree with her reasons, and her conclusions, and the order she proposes.
Member Peta Stilgoe
Mrs Vilums was a tenant of a home owned by Mr Quinn. On 11 November 2010 the learned Adjudicator ordered, by consent, that the residential tenancy would terminate on 28 January 2011. The learned Adjudicator also ordered that a warrant for possession issue on that day to enable possession to be given to Mr Quinn.
Mrs Vilums has applied for leave to appeal this decision. She wants the Appeal Tribunal to remove the warrant for possession and the date for departure. In support of the application for leave, Mrs Vilums states that: Mr Quinn presented misleading evidence to the tribunal; she did not receive his notice to leave as alleged; Mr Quinn withheld relevant information from the tribunal; and there was no valid reason to issue a breach notice.
Because the original proceeding was a minor civil dispute, leave is necessary. Leave to appeal will ordinarily only be granted where there is some question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage; or, there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision and reasonable prospect of the applicant would obtain further substantive relief. Another question sometimes asked is: is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant, caused by some error?
The matters of which Mrs Vilums complains were ventilated before the learned Adjudicator in a hearing on 14 October 2010. The learned Adjudicator acknowledged that Mrs Vilums had not received notices to enter[1]; he told Mr Quinn that he was not happy with his behaviour; he acknowledged that Mr Quinn may have been in breach of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008[2]; he accepted that Mrs Vilums was probably not in breach[3]; he recognised that having a visitor to stay was not a breach of the tenancy agreement;[4] and he contemplated dismissing Mr Quinn’s application.[5] That hearing was adjourned without order.
[1] Transcript, page 6, lines 45-46.
[2] Transcript, page 15, lines 1 - 5.
[3] Transcript, page 15, line 39.
[4] Transcript, page 16, lines 8 - 10.
[5] Transcript, page 19, line 1.
The hearing on 11 November 2011 was a different matter. The learned Adjudicator did not need to, and did not, make any findings on the matters Mrs Vilums now complains about because the parties agreed on a date on which she would vacate the house. The order that he made was simply a reflection of Mrs Vilums’ agreement to vacate on a particular date and was not based, in any sense, on the matters that Mrs Vilums now raises.
Further argument on this issue would not be to the public advantage, there is no possibility of substantive relief for Mrs Vilums, and there is no error by the learned Adjudicator.
I note Mrs Vilums also wants to challenge her liability for the water bills handed to her at the hearing. That is not part of the original proceeding and therefore cannot be part of the application for leave.
Leave to appeal should be refused.
0
0
0