Wain v Palm Lake Resort Pty Ltd - [2022] QCATA 110

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Wain & anor v Palm Lake Resort Pty Ltd [2022] QCATA 110

PARTIES:

JEANETTE WAIN & RAYMOND WESTCOTT

(applicants/appellants)

v

PALM LAKE RESORT PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL272-21

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

OCL007-20

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

1 August 2022

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC

ORDERS:

1.     Appeal allowed

2.     Decision of the Tribunal of 26 February 2021 set aside

3.     The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for re-hearing by a different Member

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – Appeal – relevant evidence overlooked – whether appeal on a question of law - whether breach of rules of natural justice – appeal allowed

Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 (Qld) s70

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 28(2)(a), 142(3)(b)

Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280
Commissioner for Liquor and Gaming v Farquhar Corporation Pty Ltd [2018] QCA 202
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Osland v Secretary, Department of Justice (2010) 241 CLR 320
Pivovarova v Michelsen (2019) 2 Q R 508
Powell v Queensland University of Technology [2018] 2 Qd R 276
Priddy v M & T Entriken Pty Ltd [2020] QCAT 107
Seirlis v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QCATA 37

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

The appellants are home owners at the Palm Lakes Resort owned by the respondent, and pay site rent to it. The resort is governed by the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks)Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”). They received from the respondent a notice dated 17 May 2019 advising a general increase in site rent, said to be by way of a market review under the terms of their site agreement. The appellants disputed this increase, and applied to the Tribunal, under the Act s 70(3), s 115. On 26 February 2021, the Tribunal dismissed the application. The appellants filed an application for reopening that decision, but on 13 September 2021 a Senior Member ordered that the application proceed as an application for leave to appeal and appeal. That is what is before me.
This was an appeal from a decision of a Member of the Tribunal exercising the original jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“the QCAT Act”) s 142 the appellants have a right to appeal on a question of law, to be decided in accordance with the QCAT Act s 146, but require leave to appeal on a question of fact, or mixed fact and law: the QCAT Act s 142(3)(b). On the face of it the appellants are not seeking leave to appeal, so the appeal must be dealt with under s 146.

Decision of Member

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wain v Palm Lake Resort Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] QCATA 110
Decision Date: 1 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the plaintiff, Wain, against Palm Lake Resort Pty Ltd, regarding a dispute originating from a decision by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The original dispute pertained to an administrative matter that involved the resort's operations and its interaction with the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought to challenge the Tribunal's decision, claiming that the Tribunal had overlooked relevant evidence and potentially breached the rules of natural justice.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the appeal was validly on a question of law and whether there had been a breach of natural justice by the Tribunal. The court was required to determine if the Tribunal had failed to consider pertinent evidence, which could have influenced the outcome of the case, and if such an omission constituted a breach of natural justice. Additionally, the court examined whether the grounds for appeal were sufficient to warrant setting aside the Tribunal's decision.

In its reasoning, the court found that the Tribunal indeed overlooked relevant evidence that was crucial to the plaintiff's case. This oversight was significant enough to potentially affect the decision, thereby constituting a breach of natural justice. The court determined that the appeal was validly on a question of law, as the error in the Tribunal's consideration of evidence was a fundamental procedural flaw. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's decision, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for re-hearing by a different Member to ensure impartiality and a fair consideration of all relevant evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

2. Decision of the Tribunal of 26 February 2021 set aside

3. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for re-hearing by a different Member

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.