Wechsel v Andrew
[2011] QCATA 49
•9 March 2011
| CITATION: | Wechsel v Andrew [2011] QCATA 49 |
| APPELLANT: | Hayley Wechsel (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| RESPONDENT: | Michael Andrew (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL373-10 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Judge Fleur Kingham, A/President |
| DELIVERED ON: | 9 March 2011 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | The applicant’s application to stay the decision dated made on 30 November 2010 in MCD392-10 is refused. |
| CATCHWORDS : | APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – APPLICATION TO STAY DECISION ON APPEAL – where applicant sought to stay original decision pending appeal – where written reasons requested but not received – where oral reasons given |
REASONS FOR DECISION
This is an application by Mrs Wechsel to stay a decision of the Tribunal made on 30 November 2010. That decision related to a residential tenancy dispute and required Mrs Wechsel to pay Mr Andrew $10,400 by way of rent reduction over a stated term due to the condition of the property during that period. On 25 January 2011 I declined Mrs Wechsel’s application to stay that decision. Mrs Wechsel has now requested reasons for the decision. These are my reasons.
The application to stay the decision relies on a request to the Tribunal, as yet unsatisfied, for written reasons for the original decision. Oral reasons were given when the decision was announced. The application for leave to appeal identifies what Mrs Wechsel says were the errors made by the Magistrate who heard the matter. Written reasons will provide further information for Mrs Wechsel or those advising her in preparing her application.
Lodging an application for leave to appeal does not have the effect of staying the decision[1]. The Tribunal may make an order staying the operation of the decision until the appeal is finally decided[2]. The Tribunal’s discretion to grant a stay is unfettered. Unless there is some particular feature of a case which warrants it, a successful party is prima facie entitled to the fruits of its judgement[3].
[1] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 145(1).
[2] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 145(2).
[3] Berry v Green [1999] QCA 213 per de Jersey CJ at [3].
The fact that the information put forward in support of the application for leave to appeal might be supplemented after consideration of the written reasons, is not sufficient basis for exercising discretion in the applicant’s favour. Accordingly, the application to stay the decision is refused.
0