Wilson v Next Property Pty Ltd

[2018] QCATA 12

CITATION:

Wilson & Anor v Next Property Pty Ltd [2018] QCATA 12

PARTIES:

Taylor Maree Clare Wilson
Anthony Richard Trudgen
(Appellants)

v

Next Property Pty Ltd

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL268-17

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Gordon

DELIVERED ON:

7 February 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

Leave to appeal is refused.  The appeal therefore fails.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN NO APPEAL LIES – leave to appeal – where minor civil dispute heard by Adjudicator – whether any reasonably arguable grounds of appeal

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142(3)

Wilson & Anor v Next Property Pty Ltd [2017] QCATA 145

APPEARANCES:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. In this appeal Taylor Wilson and Anthony Trudgen (the tenants) say that the Adjudicator who heard this residential tenancy dispute made a statement at the start of the proceedings which demonstrated bias and that he had formed a pre-existing view.  It is said that the statement made by the Adjudicator showed that he was not going to have proper regard to their case.  Because of this, the tenants say they did not tender all their supporting information at the hearing and this caused an injustice.

2. Section 28 of the QCAT Act is referred to. It is said that the tribunal did not fulfil its obligations under that section to act fairly on the merits of the case and to ensure that all relevant material was disclosed.

3. In the submissions for the appeal[1] the tenants repeat the above grounds, and set out the Adjudicator’s statement to which objection was taken:

   I have had a look at the file and it appears to me that this is not a complex matter.  It would be surprising if you were not able to reach agreement.

   [1]Received by the tribunal on 25 September 2017.

4. The tenants also say in their submissions on appeal that Next Property (who were bringing the claim as agents for the owners) had provided false information in a previous claim which showed “prejudice by them towards us” and therefore that the Adjudicator should not have accepted the evidence given by Next Property.

5. The tenants applied to the Appeal Tribunal for leave to adduce fresh evidence in this appeal,[2] and documents showing the nature of the previous claim and what happened to it was attached to that application. That application was refused by the Appeal Tribunal. Reasons were given for that refusal in Wilson & Anor v Next Property Pty Ltd [2017] QCATA 145. Accordingly I am unable to consider those documents.

   [2]Application received by the tribunal on 25 September 2017.

6. The dispute heard by the Adjudicator was about what should happen to the residential tenancy rental bond after the end of the appellants’ tenancy.  The owners were seeking part of the…