Watts v Image Real Estate

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Watts v Image Real Estate [2022] QCATA 29

PARTIES:

GEORGIA WATTS

(applicant/appellant)

v

IMAGE REAL ESTATE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL311-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT 178-20 Pine Rivers

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

22 February 2022

HEARING DATE:

13 August 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – where the lessor claimed compensation against a former tenant – where the tenant did not provide a forwarding address but the tenant’s email address was known – where the Tribunal registry served a copy of the initiating application and notice of hearing on the tenant at the email address – where the tenant failed to appear but was telephoned by the Adjudicator presiding – where the tenant was present for the hearing by telephone – where the tenant sought leave to appeal the decision of the Adjudicator awarding the lessor compensation – where the tenant claimed breach of natural justice because she was not aware of the hearing – where a party must look to their own interests in matters before the Tribunal – where there was no failure to accord natural justice  

Arowana Pty Ltd t/a Choice IT Australia v Scott [2019] QCATA 100

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

The Pot Man Pty Ltd v Reaoch [2011] QCATA 318

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self represented
Respondent:	Self-represented by K Ellis

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The appellant (‘Ms Watts’) was tenant of residential premises in Brisbane and the respondent was the lessor’s real estate agent.

2. Despite the existence of a fixed term tenancy agreement ending September 2020, the parties fell out and there was no objection by the lessor to Ms Watts (and her husband) ending the tenancy early.

3. The agents brought proceedings in the Tribunal however on behalf of the lessor seeking compensation for various things including water charges and cleaning costs.

4. The registry served a copy of the application on Ms Watts and a separate copy on her husband, who was also a tenant, by email addressed to their respective email addresses. This was because the agent noted on the application that the tenants had not supplied a forwarding address and her address was unknown to them. The registry also served under cover of the same email notice of hearing on the tenants giving time and date of the hearing at Pine Rivers Magistrates Court.

5. The matter came on for hearing before an Adjudicator on the notified date and time but there was no appearance by the tenants.

6. Ms Watts was telephoned from the hearing room and Ms Watts claimed she knew nothing of the hearing or the claim brought against her (and her husband) by the respondent. The Adjudicator stood the matter down for approximately one hour to allow Ms Watts time to prepare and then proceeded with the hearing with Ms Watts attending by telephone.

7. The Adjudicator found Ms…