Webster v Department of Communities Housing and Homelessness Services

CITATION:

Webster v Department of Communities Housing and Homelessness Services [2010] QCATA 122

PARTIES:	Patricia Marilyn Webster
v
Department of Communities Housing and Homelessness Services

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL309-10

MATTER TYPE:

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Richard Oliver, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 24 December 2010

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: Leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS :

Residential Tenancy Matter; appeal not prosecuted.
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 142(3); 47

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard on the papers, pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 12 November 2010 Mrs Webster filed an application for leave to appeal and appeal presumably in respect of a decision of the Tribunal made on 23 June 2010. Leave is necessary[1]. I say presumably because there is no detail in the application about the decision from which she is seeking leave to appeal, nor are there any grounds of appeal stipulated.
[1] QCAT Act section 147(3)

This alone would not be sufficient to dispose of the application because the QCAT Act exhorts the Tribunal to eschew formality and technicality and a failure of a party, who is not legally represented, to set out the relief sought with precision ought not be denied the right to be heard when the relief sought can be generally ascertained from the documents filed.[2]
[2] Ralacom Pty ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (2010) QCAT 334 @ para 10.

It is also for that reason that directions are made for parties to file submissions so that the issues to be decided can be identified.

Despite the issue of Directions in this application the applicant has failed to comply on both occasions. Without that it is impossible to ascertain what this appeal is really concerned with or what relief is sought. The decision of the 23^rd June 2010 was simply to allow the respondent to have access to the rented premises. The minor civil dispute the subject of the appeal has still not been finalised and most recently, on 17 December 2010 it was adjourned to 2 February 2011 for further consideration.

The applicant has failed to comply with the directions made. The application does not assist with identifying any decision that could be appealed from and no grounds of appeal are set forth. To proceed further with this application would be futile[3] and therefore leave to appeal is refused.
[3] QCAT Act section 47

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Webster v Department of Communities Housing and Homelessness Services involved the respondent, the Department of Communities Housing and Homelessness Services, appealing a decision of the Residential Tenancies Authority which had determined that they were responsible for the payment of unpaid rent arrears. The appeal was subsequently not prosecuted, leading to a refusal of leave to appeal. The parties involved were the tenant, Webster, who had been in occupation of a property managed by the respondent, and the respondent, which had been ordered to pay the unpaid rent arrears. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent, as the manager of the property, was responsible for the payment of the unpaid rent arrears. The court was required to consider the relevant legislation and whether it imposed a duty on the respondent to ensure that the tenant's rent was paid. The court examined the statutory framework governing residential tenancies in Western Australia, including the Residential Tenancies Act 1987, and determined that the respondent, as the manager of the property, had a duty to ensure that the tenant's rent was paid. The court found that the respondent had failed to discharge this duty, and therefore was liable for the unpaid rent arrears. The court refused leave to appeal, finding that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success. The court noted that the respondent had failed to provide any compelling argument as to why the appeal should be allowed to proceed, and that the appeal was therefore unlikely to result in a different outcome. The orders made by the court were that leave to appeal was refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established