Taylor v Department of Housing and Public Works

CITATION:

Taylor v Department of Housing & Public Works [2014] QCATA 106

PARTIES:	Kelly Ann Taylor (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Department of Housing & Public Works (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL112 -14

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Stilgoe, OAM

DELIVERED ON:

5 May 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES – where tenant 9 weeks in arrears – where tenant paid most of arrears the day before hearing – where tribunal terminated tenancy agreement - whether grounds for leave to appeal

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 337(3)

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 26 February 2014, the tribunal terminated Ms Taylor’s tenancy agreement. At the date of filing the claim, the Department was owed $2,401.84. Apart from two payments in November 2013, Ms Taylor had not paid rent since October 2013.
Ms Taylor wants to appeal the tribunal’s decision. Her only ground of appeal is that she had paid the rent up to date prior to the hearing and she wants to avoid homelessness.
Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary. The principles the appeals tribunal applies when considering an application for leave to appeal are as summarised by Keane JA (as His Honour then was) in Pickering v McArthur[1]:
There are numerous authorities, in varying language but with unvarying emphasis, that leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.
[1][2005] QCA 294 at [3].
The transcript shows that the learned Adjudicator was aware that Ms Taylor had made a payment prior to the hearing[2]. Ms Taylor was still in arrears. The learned Adjudicator was also aware that the Department told Ms Taylor it would be pressing for a termination based on Ms Taylor’s rental history[3].
[2]Transcript page 1-2, line 36.
[3]Transcript page 1-2, lines 37-39.
Ms Taylor has not pointed to any error by the learned Adjudicator. The tribunal may consider a range of matters when deciding to terminate a tenancy agreement[4]. Ms Taylor’s breaches were recurrent and frequent. She owed nine weeks’ rent. Her steps to remedy the breach were too little and too late. The learned Adjudicator exercised her discretion appropriately and I can find no compelling reason to come to a different view.
[4]Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 337(3).

There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Adjudicator was in error. Leave to appeal should be refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Taylor against the Department of Housing and Public Works. Taylor, a tenant, was in arrears on his rent for nine weeks. He paid most of the arrears the day before the hearing, but the tribunal had already terminated the tenancy agreement. The matter was before the court to determine whether Taylor had grounds for leave to appeal this decision. The central issue for the court was to assess whether Taylor's late payment, made just prior to the hearing, could constitute a valid reason for allowing an appeal against the tribunal's decision to terminate the tenancy agreement.

The court considered the procedural aspects of the appeal, focusing on the strict timelines and the tribunal's jurisdiction over tenancy disputes. It examined the tribunal's authority to terminate a tenancy agreement when a tenant is in arrears and whether Taylor's last-minute payment could mitigate the tribunal's decision. The court concluded that the tribunal had appropriately exercised its discretion in terminating the tenancy, given the significant arrears and the fact that Taylor had not demonstrated any ability to consistently meet his rental obligations. The court held that the late payment did not alter the tribunal's decision, as it did not address the underlying issue of Taylor's financial reliability as a tenant.

Given the findings, the court determined that there were no grounds for leave to appeal. The tribunal's decision was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. Consequently, the court refused Taylor's request for leave to appeal the tribunal's decision to terminate his tenancy agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established