Zhang v Bric Housing - [2025] QCAT 335

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRUBUNAL

CITATION:

Zhang v Bric Housing [2025] QCAT 335

PARTIES:

LU WEN ZHANG

(applicant)

v

BRIC HOUSING

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

ADL085-23

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination

DELIVERED ON:

8 September 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

MEMBER:

Judicial Member Stilgoe OAM

ORDER/S:

1. The applicant’s application to amend her statement of contentions is granted.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where Human Rights Commission referred anti-discrimination complaint to the Tribunal in 2023 – where Tribunal previously refused to exercise its power to extend a time limit for the applicant’s filing of an earlier claim – where applicant has had the benefit of legal advice from three sets of lawyers – where applicant has applied to file a second amended statement of contentions – where respondent opposes application on the basis the applicant is attempting to relitigate matters previously dismissed – whether the amended statement of contentions is an attempt to relitigate matters – whether the applicant had ample opportunity to raise matters considered in second amended statement of contentions – whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion in allowing the second amended statement of contentions

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 s 175(2)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 3, s 24, s 47, s 48, s 49, s 62, s 64

AWB Constructions Pty Ltd v Abbott [2010] QCAT 167
Birkett v James [1978] AC 297
DSV Silo-und Verwaltungsgesellschaft MBH v Owners of the Senner (The Senner) (No 2) [1985] 1 WLR 490
Mango Boulevard v Spencer [2008] QCA 274
Wong v Medical Board of Queensland [2006] QADT 41

APPEARANCES:

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

Lu Wen Zhang has been a tenant of Bric Housing since 2014. It would be fair to say that her tenancy with Bric has not been a happy one.
This is Ms Zhang’s third complaint about her treatment in and around her tenancy. It should be ready for a hearing. Instead, Ms Zhang wants to amend her statement of contentions, again.

How did we get here?

It is not my practice to recite the procedural steps taken in getting a matter before the Tribunal but, in this case, those steps are important in deciding the question.
In 2022, Lu Wen Zhang filed an eleven-page complaint with the Human Rights Commission about the treatment she received as a tenant of Bric Housing. The complaint was prepared with the assistance of lawyers. This was not Ms Zhang’s first interaction with the world of anti-discrimination. The Tribunal had dismissed a previous complaint against Bric but upheld her complaint against a neighbour.
The Commission referred that complaint to the Tribunal in November 2023. As was usual, the Tribunal issued directions requiring Ms Zhang file and serve a statement of contentions within 28 days. Those directions were specific about what should be included in Ms Zhang’s…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Zhang v Bric Housing and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QCAT 335
Decision Date: 8 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Zhang v Bric Housing, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was tasked with determining whether the applicant, Mr Zhang, should be permitted to file a second amended statement of contentions in an anti-discrimination complaint. The Human Rights Commission had referred the complaint to QCAT in 2023, following a previous refusal by the Tribunal to extend the time limit for Mr Zhang to file an earlier claim. Mr Zhang sought to amend his statement of contentions, arguing that the initial legal advice he received was inadequate, and that he had since consulted three sets of lawyers. The respondent opposed the application, asserting that Mr Zhang was attempting to relitigate matters that had already been dismissed.

The primary legal issues for the Tribunal to decide were whether the proposed second amended statement of contentions constituted an attempt to relitigate matters that had already been dismissed, and whether Mr Zhang had ample opportunity to raise the matters in question. The Tribunal considered whether it should exercise its discretion to allow the second amended statement of contentions, taking into account the applicant's history of seeking to amend his claims and the potential impact on the respondent and the judicial process.

The Tribunal concluded that the second amended statement of contentions did represent an attempt to relitigate matters previously dismissed. The Tribunal found that Mr Zhang had had sufficient opportunity to raise the matters in question and that allowing the amendment would unduly prolong the proceedings. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to refuse permission for the filing of the second amended statement of contentions, emphasizing the importance of finality in legal proceedings and the need to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.

The Tribunal ordered that the application to file the second amended statement of contentions be dismissed, with no order as to costs. The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of finality in legal proceedings and the Tribunal's reluctance to permit repeated amendments that could lead to protracted litigation.

Orders