Williams v Deb Austin Property Management - [2023] QCATA 87

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Williams v Deb Austin Property Management [2023] QCATA 87

PARTIES:

DAVID JAMES WILLIAMS

(applicant/appellant)

v

DEB AUSTIN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL100-23

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

T 3/23 Emerald

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

26 July 2023

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC

ORDERS:

Application for a stay filed 6 April 2023 dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – appeal – stay pending appeal – whether appellant adversely affected if decision implemented – stay refused

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 92, s 93, s 138, s 142, s 143A

Cooks Construction Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Aust Pty Ltd [2008] 2 Qd R 453

J C Scott Constructions Pty Ltd v Mermaid Waters Tavern Pty Ltd (No 1) [1983] 2 Qd R 255

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

This is an application to stay a decision of the Tribunal pending the hearing and determination of an application for leave to appeal against that decision. On 13 March 2023 a Member,[1] sitting in Emerald, decided a dispute in relation to a rental bond, and a claim for compensation, brought by the respondent against the appellant.[2] The appellant did not appear at that hearing, the respondent did, and the Member gave the relief sought by the respondent, that the bond be paid to the respondent, and that the applicant pay a further amount of $2,145.54 to the respondent within four weeks.
[1]A Magistrate Sitting as a Member under the QCAT Act s 171(2).
[2]I shall refer to Mr Williams as the appellant, and Deb Austin Property Management as the respondent.
On 6 April 2023 the appellant filed in the Tribunal an application for leave to appeal from the decision of the Member, on the ground that he had not received the notice of the hearing from the Tribunal, giving details of when the hearing was to be. He also disputed the respondent’s claims. On the same day he filed an application to stay the decision of the Tribunal. In that application, he added the information that he was away at the time of the hearing, due to work commitments and a specialist appointment for his daughter. It is the application for a stay which is now before me.

Background

The appellant was formerly a tenant of a residential property in Emerald managed by the respondent. According to the respondent, he moved into the property as its first tenant when it was new, the lease commencing on 16 April 2014. The last tenancy agreement was a fixed term agreement, from 17 June 2022 to 16 December 2022, signed electronically by the appellant on 18 June 2022. On 30 November 2022 the appellant gave to the respondent notice of intention to leave in…

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.

Continue reading Williams v Deb Austin Property Management

Details

AGLC: Williams v Deb Austin Property Management [2023] QCATA 87
Case: [2023] QCATA 87
Decision Date: 26 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Williams v Deb Austin Property Management, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was asked to determine whether an appeal against a decision should be stayed pending the outcome of that appeal. The appellant, Williams, sought to have a decision of QCAT, which was in favour of the respondent, Deb Austin Property Management, temporarily halted. The dispute centred on an administrative decision made regarding a dispute between a landlord and a tenant, with Williams claiming that the decision adversely affected their rights if implemented before the appeal was resolved.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether the appellant would suffer significant harm if the decision was implemented. Williams argued that the immediate enforcement of the decision would result in financial loss and other detriments, warranting a stay. The tribunal had to weigh the potential harm against the interests of finality and the public interest in the expeditious resolution of disputes.

The tribunal examined the arguments and evidence presented by both parties. It concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated that they would be significantly harmed if the decision was implemented, nor had they shown that the stay would serve the interests of justice. The tribunal found that the potential harm was not severe enough to warrant a stay, and that the public interest in finality and efficiency in dispute resolution outweighed the appellant’s concerns. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the application for a stay filed on 6 April 2023.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for a stay filed 6 April 2023 dismissed.

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.