Watson v State of Queensland - [2023] QCATA 157

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Watson v State of Queensland [2023] QCATA 157

PARTIES:

ERIC ALLAN WATSON

(applicant)

v

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL300-23

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT69/23 (Gladstone)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

REASONS DELIVERED ON:

7 December 2023

DECISION DATE:

23 October 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lember

ORDERS:

1. The application to stay a decision is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where stay is sought– where termination order made on grounds of serious breach – where tenant facing criminal charges and asserts right to silence – whether termination hearing should have been adjourned to permit the tenant to exercise those rights – where application to stay a decision was refused

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 11, s 13, s 48, s 58, s 93, s 143, s 145, Schedule 3
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 290a, s 293, s 329, s 345A

Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Cooks Construction Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Aust Pty Ltd [2008] 2 Qd R 453
Day v Humphrey [2017] QCA 104
Elphick v MMI General Insurance Ltd & Anor [2002] QCA 347
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
Hessey-Tenny & Anor v Jones [2018] QCATA 131
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577
Queensland v O’Brien and Falzon (QSC, Muir J, 879/2006, unreported)
Queensland v Shaw [2003] QSC 436
QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41
Simonova v Department of Housing and Public Works [2018] QCA 60

State of Queensland though the Department of Housing and Public Works v Turnbull [2014] QCAT 442

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

Summary

On 6 September 2023 the Tribunal sitting in Gladstone made an order terminating Mr Watson’s comunity housing tenancy from midnight on 6 September 2023 and ordered that a warrant of possession issue from 7 September 2023 (‘the Decision’).
On 23 October 2023, after taking submissions from the parties, I refused an application by Mr Watson to stay the Decision, vacated an interim order that had suspended the Decision and reissued the warrant of possession to take effect on 26 October 2023 and to expire after 8 November 2023, for the reasons that follow.

Primary dispute

The application for termination of Mr Watson’s tenancy was filed by the State of Queensland through the Department of Housing (‘the Department’) on 30 June 2023 seeking termination on the grounds of failure to leave under section 293 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (‘RTRAA’).
The Form 12 notice to leave upon which the termination application was grounded was issued on 5 June 2023, referred to…

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 Watson v State of Queensland 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: [2023] QCATA 157
Decision Date: 23 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Watson v State of Queensland, the respondent, who was a tenant, sought a stay of proceedings against the decision of the first respondent, which was a decision of the Magistrates Court of Queensland. The decision was a termination order made under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld). The tenant was facing criminal charges and wished to exercise his right to silence in the termination hearing, which the court had refused to adjourn. The applicant sought to stay the decision pending the outcome of the criminal charges.

The legal issues before the court were whether the termination hearing should have been adjourned to allow the tenant to exercise his right to silence and whether the court should grant a stay of proceedings in the circumstances. The court was required to consider the general principles applicable to the grant or refusal of a stay of proceedings, particularly in cases where a termination order has already been made on the grounds of serious breach.

The court found that the application for a stay was not well-founded. The court held that the principles governing the grant or refusal of a stay of proceedings were not in issue and that the court had correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to adjourn the termination hearing. The court held that the decision to grant a stay of proceedings was a discretionary one, and the court was not satisfied that the applicant had established grounds for the exercise of that discretion. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the refusal of the stay would result in a miscarriage of justice.

Accordingly, the court refused the application to stay the decision of the Magistrates Court. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted a stay of proceedings. The court held that the termination order was made on the basis of the serious breach of the tenancy agreement and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the refusal of the stay would result in a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the decision of the Magistrates Court was not affected by the applicant's right to silence in the criminal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to stay a decision is refused.

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.