Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
- Unreported Judgment
Atherton v Cremin QCAT 138
Atherton v Cremin & Anor  QCAT 138
Ms Maria Cremin
Residential tenancy matters
On the papers
14 June 2016
Application for representation – adequate reasons for representation – phone attendance as a viable option – inadequate reasons given for declining phone attendance
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 29 February 2016, Mr Atherton made application to the Tribunal with respect to post-tenancy issues, the former tenancy of premises 14 Royal Avenue, Spring Hill, Brisbane.
- On 13 May 2016, Francis Cremin and Ms Maria Cremin filed a counter-application in the Tribunal arising out of the same tenancy.
- By application filed 22 April 2016, Francis Cremin made an application to the Tribunal to be represented by his daughter Geraldine Cremin. He stated he was unable to travel to Brisbane for personal reasons, and that for the same reasons he could not take part in a teleconference or similar. Nothing further was proffered to the Tribunal.
- Simply citing personal reasons for being both unable to attend the hearing personally or by phone is insufficient to ground an application for representation, legal or non-legal.
- It is still the case that Francis Cremin may apply to the Tribunal for attendance at the Tribunal’s hearing on 21 June 2016 by telephone. Geraldine Cremin may appear as a McKenzie Friend at the hearing on 21 June 2016.
- Published Case Name:
Atherton v Cremin & Anor
- Shortened Case Name:
Atherton v Cremin
 QCAT 138
14 Jun 2016