Wang v Property Inc

[2014] QCAT 365

CITATION: Wang v Property Inc [2014] QCAT 365

PARTIES:	Lilly Wang (Applicant)
v
Property Inc (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: MCDT381-14

MATTER TYPE: Residential tenancy matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Adjudicator Gordon

DELIVERED ON: 22 May 2014

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: The application to re-open the proceeding is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

Residential tenancy matters – application to re-open – whether a re-opening ground exists

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 137

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. The Applicant was a tenant of premises in Dutton Park.  By an application on Form 2 presented to the tribunal on 10 February 2014 the Applicant made a claim against the lessor’s agents for compensation for breach of her tenancy agreement.  This application was heard on 2 May 2014 at a hearing where the Applicant and the Respondent attended.  It was dismissed. 

2. There were two reasons why the application was dismissed.  One was that the tribunal on that day was not satisfied that an attempt had been made to conciliate the issue in dispute with the Residential Tenancies Authority (the RTA).[1]

   [1]This is an essential pre-cursor to QCAT being able to hear it: section 416 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld).

3. In the absence of any such attempt at conciliation, QCAT would have no jurisdiction to hear the application, and effectively the tribunal sitting on 2 May 2014 decided that.  Nevertheless, it heard evidence and also decided that the Applicant had failed to prove her case.

4. On 8 May 2014 the Applicant applied to reopen the proceeding on the grounds that she disagreed with it and had significant evidence that needed to be submitted to the tribunal: a medical report, evidence from LG supply, and a notice of unresolved dispute from the RTA.

5. The application for reopening was supported by a medical report.

6. In order to have a chance of successfully applying for reopening, a party who had attended the hearing needs to show that she would suffer an injustice if the proceeding were not to be reopened because ‘significant new evidence has arisen and that evidence was not reasonably available when the proceeding was first heard and decided’.[2]

   [2]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 137.

7. There is nothing in the application for reopening to show the evidence which the applicant now wishes to put forward was new evidence and that it was not reasonably available for the original hearing.  There is nothing in the medical report which shows this either.

8. In the circumstances there is no reopening ground and the application to reopen must fail.