Walsh v Morris

[2011] QCAT 33

CITATION: Walsh v Morris [2011] QCAT 33

PARTIES:	David Walsh
v
Glenys Rose Morris and Terry Arnold Morris

APPLICATION NUMBER:   MCDT1834/10

MATTER TYPE: Residential Tenancy Matter – Review

HEARING DATE:     2 February 2011

HEARD AT:  Brisbane

DECISION OF: Richard Oliver, Senior Member.

DELIVERED ON: 2 February 2011

DELIVERED AT:      Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The Tribunal directs the Principal Registrar to reject the application pursuant to section 6(a) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

CATCHWORDS :  Referral from the Principal Registrar pursuant to section 35(4) and section 36 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 26 June 2010 the applicant filed an application for a minor civil dispute - residential tenancy matter for $445.71 rent arrears plus the filing fee.

1. On 2 September 2010 the Tribunal made an order that the applicant pay the respondents the sum of $365.00 in compensation for overpaid rent and that the bond be released to the respondents.

1. On 13 December 2010 the applicant wrote to the Principal Registrar enclosing a review application requesting that the decision of the learned adjudicator be set aside and set out grounds for that submission.

1. The Principal Registrar replied to Mr Walsh advising him that his application to review the decision of the learned adjudicator was rejected.

1. As is his right, he has requested the Tribunal to review that decision pursuant to section 35(4)(b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (the QCAT Act).

1. In reviewing that decision it is apparent to me that the Principal Registrar’s decision was correct. There is no power under the QCAT Act for it to review decisions made by the Tribunal. This seems to be acknowledged by Mr Walsh.

1. It has been suggested by Mr Walsh that the application could be reopened. The QCAT Act does provide for reopening but only in limited circumstances. Those circumstances do not pertain here. The only way the learned adjudicator’s decision can be interfered with is by the appeal Tribunal.

1. The QCAT Act does provide for an appeal process which is set out in Part 8 Division 1 of the QCAT Act.

1. If Mr Walsh wants to challenge the decision of the learned adjudicator the correct way to do this is to file an application for leave to appeal and appeal as provided for in section 142.

1. Therefore I propose to make the following decision:

1. The Tribunal directs the Principal Registrar to reject the application pursuant to section 6(a) of the QCAT Act.