Real Management Solutions Pty. Ltd. v Brisbane City Council
[2016] QCAT 370
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Real Management Solutions Pty. Ltd. v Brisbane City Council[2016] QCAT 370
- Add to List
Real Management Solutions Pty. Ltd. v Brisbane City Council[2016] QCAT 370
Real Management Solutions Pty. Ltd. v Brisbane City Council[2016] QCAT 370
CITATION: | Real Management Solutions Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2016] QCAT 370 | |
PARTIES: | Real Management Solutions Pty Ltd (Applicant) v Brisbane City Council (Respondent) | |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | RSL093-14 | |
MATTER TYPE: | Retail shop leases matters | |
HEARING DATE: | 16 August 2016 | |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane | |
DECISION OF: | Senior Member Brown | |
DELIVERED ON: | 10 October 2016 | |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane | |
ORDERS MADE: |
| |
CATCHWORDS: | STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – JURISDICTION – GENERALLY – whether claim against guarantors a “retail tenancy dispute” for the purposes of a claim pursuant to the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (Qld) – joinder of parties – extension of time for filing of counter application against guarantors – considerations in exercising discretion to extend time to file counter application Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (Qld), ss 3, 4, 83, 97, 103, Schedule Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), ss 3, 4 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009, rr 48, 51 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 178, 179 Homeware Direct.com.Pty.Ltd v Southbank Corporation and Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd [2004] RSLT 22 Mustercliff Pty Ltd v Camoford Pty Ltd [2007] RSLT 7 Chas Straker Pty Ltd v Orsay Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] QCAT 208 Goldvista Holdings Pty Ltd and Anor v J & L Branca Investments Pty Ltd [2012] QCAT 257 Mharina Rossi t/as Mhar’s Hair Salon (in liq) v JD and SJ Maconachie Pty Ltd [2013] QCAT 507 GP Phillips & Co Pty Ltd v Stantec Pty Ltd [2005] QDC 223 General Steel Industries v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125 | |
APPEARANCES: |
| |
APPLICANT: | Mr S Bulow instructed by Rostron Carlyle Solicitors | |
RESPONDENT: | Mr D Quayle instructed by Brisbane City Legal Practice | |
REASONS FOR DECISION
What is this application about?
- [2]Real Management Solutions Pty Ltd (RMS) entered into a retail shop lease with Brisbane City Council (the BCC) in respect of a café in the Mt Coot-tha Botanical Gardens, ‘Botanical Café Functions and Events’ (the café). Work on the Legacy Way traffic tunnel commenced shortly after RMS opened the café. RMS claims that it entered into the lease relying upon representations made by the BCC and that the BCC did not disclose to RMS the proposed construction of the Legacy Way traffic tunnel. RMS filed a Notice of Dispute under the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (Qld) (RSLA). The dispute was subsequently referred to the Tribunal following compulsory mediation. The BCC has filed two applications. The first application is for the joinder of the directors of RMS, Elias Philippou and Mounir Ibrahim (the proposed respondents), as respondents to the counter application by the BCC. The counter application is contained in an amended response and counter application filed by the BCC. The second application seeks orders striking out certain parts of the Notice of Dispute. It is the joinder application that falls for determination.
The background to the application and the history of the proceeding
- [3]In February 2010 RMS offered to enter into a lease for the café from the BCC. In May 2010 the parties entered into a lease for a term of five years commencing on 27 August 2010. There was no option to renew.
- [4]The proposed respondents guaranteed RMS’s obligations under the lease. The guarantee which was contained within the lease and executed as a deed, was signed by the proposed respondents (“the guarantee”).
- [5]The annual rent payable by RMS under the lease was $63,636,36. RMS was required to pay an additional amount called “Percentage Rent” which was calculated at 7% of gross revenue per calendar month (exclusive of GST) over $90,000. RMS was required to pay the annual rent by equal monthly instalments commencing on the rent commencement date. The rent commencement date was defined.[1] Not more than 90 days after the end of each year, RMS was obliged to provide to the BCC a statement of the gross revenue for each year commencing from the rent commencement date.[2] RMS was also obliged to provide to the BCC within seven days after the end of each calendar month a statement of the gross revenue for the preceding calendar month.[3] Finally, RMS was obliged to provide to the BCC within fourteen days after the end of each quarter a statement of gross revenue for the preceding 3 calendar months.[4]
- [6]Soon after RMS commenced operating the café, construction began on the Legacy Way tunnel. The tunnel, a significant piece of transport infrastructure, links the Western Freeway at Toowong and the Inner City Bypass at Kelvin Grove, Brisbane. The tunnel passes beside the Mt Coot-tha Botanical Gardens. The dispute between the parties arises principally out of what RMS says was the impact the construction of the tunnel had on the operation of the café.
- [7]RMS says that it was misled into entering into the lease by representations by the BCC about the master planning/redevelopment that was to occur in the Botanical Gardens. RMS says that the BCC failed to disclose, before the lease was entered into, that the Legacy Way tunnel construction works would commence during the term of the lease. RMS says that it is entitled to compensation from the BCC for loss it has suffered as a result of the construction works. The BCC denies the allegations by RMS.
- [8]The proposed respondents, as the directors and controlling minds of RMS, were the guarantors under the deed of guarantee. Until approximately July 2012, RMS complied with its obligations under the lease to provide financial reporting and to pay percentage rent.[5]
- [9]The guarantee is to be found at clauses 34 (and following) of the lease:
- Entering into Guarantee
In consideration of the Council agreeing to grant this Lease to the Tenant at the request of the guarantor named in Item 9 of Schedule 1 (“the Guarantor”), the Guarantor enters into this guarantee (“the Guarantee”) in favour of the Council on the terms stated in Clauses 34 to 42.
- Scope of Guarantee
35.1 The Guarantor guarantees payment of the Annual Rent `and Percentage Rent and compliance with all the Tenant’s obligations during the term … by the Tenant.
…
- Claim under the Guarantee
The Council may require the Guarantor to pay to the Council any outstanding Annual Rent, Percentage Rent or other monies payable under this Lease to the Council or to compensate the Council for any loss without the Council having made any Claim against the Tenant.
- [10]The guarantee, signed by the proposed respondents, is executed as a Deed.
- [11]
- [12]The Notice of Dispute was referred to the Tribunal in February 2015. The BCC filed its response on 25 May 2015. The response did not include a counter application. In its amended response and counter application filed 18 May 2016 the BCC claims against RMS and the proposed respondents orders for the production of the documents required for the calculation of the percentage rent; orders for the payment of arrears of rent; costs and interest.
What do the parties say?
Jurisdiction
- [13]The BCC says that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine the claim for rent arrears is engaged by s 103(2)(d) RSLA. RMS seeks the payment of compensation from the BCC. The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear a retail tenancy dispute about arrears of rent under a retail shop lease if the dispute is also about the payment of compensation by the lessor to the lessee under the lease.
- [14]The BCC says that the application to join the proposed respondents turns upon whether:
- The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims by the BCC against the proposed respondents; and, if yes,
- Should the proposed respondents be joined as parties in the proceeding.
- [15]There has, says the BCC, been very little consideration of the question whether a retail tenancy dispute includes a claim against guarantors and no specific determination of the issue. The BCC says that the weight of authority, such as there is, suggests that the Tribunal does have jurisdiction in respect of claims against guarantors.
- [16]The BCC says that the plain meaning of the definition of retail tenancy dispute found in the RSLA includes a claim “about” a lease which includes a claim about something distinct from the lease but necessarily with a close connection to the lease.
- [17]RMS says that a claim against a guarantor is not a retail tenancy dispute. RMS says that the relevant issues are: who are the parties to the lease; and would the BCC’s claim against the proposed respondents be a claim in respect to a retail tenancy dispute. RMS points to the definition of a retail shop lease and says that the proposed respondents were not parties to the lease.
Joinder
- [18]The BCC refers to the power found at s 42 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) to order that a person be joined as a party to a proceeding and points to r 48 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 which permits the joinder of a party as a respondent to a counter application.
- [19]The BCC says that the claim against the proposed respondents is within time, that the case it seeks to mount is a strong one and certainly more than the required arguable case. The BCC says that the proposed respondents’ interests will be affected by the proceeding and that the proposed respondents should be bound by, or have the benefit of, the decision of the tribunal in the proceeding.
- [20]The third basis upon which the BCC says it is appropriate that the proposed respondents be joined as parties is that they will be able to be heard on matters that materially affect their interests, it will promote the finality of litigation, and it will avoid multiple proceedings.
- [21]RMS says that the joinder application has not been brought in the proper form or manner; that the BCC seeks a declaration or orders but makes no submissions to support either; and the BCC has not clearly and expressly informed the relief sought.
Consideration
- [22]A retail tenancy dispute:
means any dispute under or about a retail shop lease, or about the use or occupation of a leased shop under a retail shop lease, regardless of when the lease was entered into.[8] (emphasis added)
- [23]
means an agreement under which a person gives or agrees to give to someone else for valuable consideration a right to occupy premises…[10]
- [24]As the parties have submitted, whether a claim against a guarantor is a retail tenancy dispute has, somewhat surprisingly, been the subject of limited judicial consideration.
- [25]In Homeware Direct.com.Pty.Ltd v Southbank Corporation and Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd [11] the former Retail Shop Lease Tribunal considered a claim by a tenant for compensation for false and misleading representations. The landlord sought an order for the transfer of the dispute to the District Court where a proceeding was pending involving similar issues. A proceeding was commenced in the Magistrates Court by the landlord some months before the tenant lodged a Notice of Dispute. The Magistrates Court claim for rent arrears, brought against the tenant and the guarantors, was subsequently transferred to the District Court. The tenant filed a defence and counterclaim based upon the alleged misrepresentations.
- [26]Tribunal Chair Forbes considered whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction under (then) s 109(1)(b)(i) of the RSLA which provided that:
(1) A tribunal has jurisdiction to hear retail tenancy disputes, other than a retail tenancy dispute—
…
(b) about—
(i) arrears of rent under a retail shop lease; or
(ii) the amount of rent payable under a retail shop lease; or
(iii) the amount of a lessor’s outgoings under a retail shop lease;
- [27]Chairperson Forbes found that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine a dispute about rent arrears or a rent guarantee referring to s 109(1)(b)(i). However the RSLA did not, at the time Homeware Direct.com.Pty.Ltd was decided, contain an equivalent provision to the current s 103(2)(d) so that the prohibition on rent arrears claims in the Tribunal was absolute.
- [28]Mustercliff Pty Ltd v Camoford Pty Ltd[12] was decided after Homeware Direct.com.Pty.Ltd and involved the consideration by the former Retail Shop Lease Tribunal of a dispute between an applicant tenant and respondent landlord. After the Notice of Dispute was lodged in the Tribunal, the landlord commenced separate proceedings in the Magistrates Court against the tenant and its guarantor. The tenant objected to jurisdiction on two bases. Relevant to this application is the second basis raised by the tenant, namely that the Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to enforce a guarantee. In her decision, Chairman Forbes observed that the Tribunal did not have a roving commission to arbitrate fair solutions to any and every dispute between retail shopping centres and their lessees.[13] Chairman Forbes, in disposing of the application, did not consider it necessary to decide whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction with respect to the claims against the guarantors.
- [29]In 2009 the RSLA was amended to permit claims for arrears of rent payable under a retail shop lease if the dispute is also about the payment of compensation by the lessor to the lessee under the lease.[14]
- [30]In Chas Straker Pty Ltd v Orsay Holdings Pty Ltd [15], the Tribunal considered a claim by an applicant tenant for compensation arising out of conduct by the respondent landlord. The guarantors were joined as parties in the proceeding and were identified as third parties. The claim against the guarantors was in respect of the unpaid rent and outgoings.[16] The Tribunal made a number of findings however relevant to the claim against the guarantors, the Tribunal found that the tenant was entitled to recover an amount for the loss of its plant and equipment. The Tribunal also found that the landlord was entitled to recover arrears of rent however set this amount off against the tenant’s claim for loss of plant and equipment. The Tribunal found:
It follows from the above that there will be no order in favour of the respondent against the third parties, the guarantors.[17]
- [31]Goldvista Holdings Pty Ltd and Anor v J & L Branca Investments Pty Ltd[18] involved an application to join guarantors by the respondent landlord. The applicant tenant’s Notice of Dispute sought orders that the landlord consent to an assignment of the lease, return bank guarantees and pay costs. The landlord sought the payment of rent arrears. The Tribunal declined to make the orders sought however in doing so observed that the claim for arrears of rent was outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Although the reasons do no expressly refer to s 103 RSLA, it appears that the absence of a claim for compensation by the applicant tenant precluded any claim by the landlord for rent arrears.
- [32]Finally, in Mharina Rossi t/as Mhar’s Hair Salon (in liq) v JD and SJ Maconachie Pty Ltd[19] the guarantors (the directors of the sub-lessor) applied to be joined as parties in the proceeding by the applicant sub-lessor. One of the guarantors was an undischarged bankrupt. The applicant sub lessor was in liquidation. The Tribunal found that to the extent the guarantors sought to prosecute personal rights arising out of a franchise agreement and licence agreement or as guarantors under the head lease, such claims did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the franchise agreement, licence agreement and guarantee under the head lease were not a retail shop lease as defined under the RSLA and the dispute arising out of the documents was not a retail tenancy dispute.[20] In dismissing the application to be joined, the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with the personal claims by the guarantors which were not retail tenancy disputes.[21]
- [33]The object of the RSLA is to promote efficiency and equity in the conduct of certain retail businesses in Queensland.[22] That object is to be achieved through mandatory minimum standards for retail shop leases and a low cost dispute resolution process for retail tenancy disputes.[23] Dispute resolution process means a mediation process or a hearing by the Tribunal under the QCAT Act of a retail tenancy dispute.[24]
- [34]The RSLA applies to all retail shop leases of premises in Queensland.[25] The RSLA deals with, among other things, preliminary disclosures about leases[26]; minimum lease standards[27]; turnover rent[28]; rent review[29]; lessor’s outgoings and other payments[30]; compensation[31]; unconscionable conduct[32]; assignments of leases[33]; renewals of leases[34]; trading hours[35]; dispute resolution[36]. The RSLA sets out a comprehensive regime in respect of retail shop leases and retail tenancy disputes.
- [35]
- [36]Generally speaking, a retail tenancy dispute must first pass through the mediation process set out in the RSLA before the Notice of Dispute finds its way to the Tribunal. The mediators’ jurisdiction in respect of disputes can be found at s 97 RSLA. A mediator does not have jurisdiction to mediate a tenancy dispute about arrears of rent under a retail shop lease.[39] The power of the Tribunal to hear a retail tenancy dispute about arrears of rent found at s 103(2)(d) is not found in s 97.
- [37]The RSLA provides that a “party to a retail tenancy dispute” may lodge notice of the dispute with the chief executive.[40] A party to a retail tenancy dispute is not defined. Upon referral of the Notice of Dispute, the Tribunal may make an order requiring a party to a dispute to pay an amount (including an amount of compensation) to a specified person, called a payment order.[41]
- [38]The RSLA contains various references to the circumstances in which a retail tenancy dispute may exist. For example, a failure to provide required disclosure results in a retail tenancy dispute.[42] If a lessor fails to provide information requested by a specialist retail valuer, a retail tenancy dispute exists.[43] A failure by a lessor to consent to an assignment of a lease may create a retail tenancy dispute.[44] The RSLA does not exhaustively identify each and every circumstance which may give rise to a retail tenancy dispute. It merely identifies some circumstances which give rise to a retail tenancy dispute.
- [39]The definition of a retail tenancy dispute as meaning “any dispute under or about a retail shop lease dispute…” should be given its plain meaning according to the text, the context in which it is found and the object of the RSLA. A retail tenancy dispute is not confined to a dispute under a lease. The dispute may be one “about” a lease. “About” given its ordinary definition means “on the subject of” or “concerning”, “with reference to” or “with regard to”. I accept the submission by the BCC that while the degree of connection between a dispute and a lease is not expanded upon in the definition, that connection must necessarily be a close one.
- [40]The definition of a retail tenancy dispute is not constrained or limited by reference to a description of who may be a party to such a dispute such as a lessor or a lessee, a proposed lessor or proposed lessee, an assignor or assignee etc.
- [41]The obligation by RMS to pay rent to the BCC arises under the terms of the lease. Whilst the claim against the proposed respondents relates to obligations arising under the guarantee and not directly under the lease, absent the obligations imposed upon the tenant under the lease, the obligations under the guarantee would not arise. The obligation of the guarantors in respect of arrears of rent only arises in circumstances where the payment of rent by the tenant is outstanding. As clause 34 of the lease makes clear, the guarantee was entered into as consideration for the BCC agreeing to enter into the lease with RMS.
- [42]Clause 42 of the lease requires RMS to give notice to the BCC in the event of the death, bankruptcy, or loss of capacity of the guarantor in which event the BCC may require RMS to have another acceptable person sign a guarantee. I accept the submissions by the BCC that these indicia of close connection and entanglement are reflective of the claim against the proposed respondents in relation to their obligations arising under the guarantee being a claim “about the lease”.
- [43]Finally, there is the fact that the guarantee is part of the lease. The registration of the lease resulted in the deed of guarantee being also thus recorded.
- [44]The object of the RSLA is to promote efficiency and equity in the conduct of certain retail businesses in Queensland. Guarantees by directors are a feature of commercial leasing transactions and are very often integral to such transactions. Promoting efficiency and equity in the conduct of retail businesses is to be achieved by the low cost resolution of tenancy disputes relating to the conduct of retail businesses.[45] This requirement is entirely harmonious with the objects of the QCAT Act and the requirement for the tribunal to deal with matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick.[46] The Tribunal must ensure that proceedings are conducted in an informal way that minimises costs to parties and is as quick as is consistent with achieving justice.[47]
- [45]The Tribunal derives its jurisdiction in respect of retail tenancy disputes (and thus the claim against the proposed respondents) from the RSLA. The definition of “dispute resolution process” in respect of retail tenancy disputes under the RSLA encompasses proceedings in the Tribunal under the QCAT Act. Permitting the claim against the proposed respondents in the present proceeding is, in my view, consistent with the object of the RSLA, how the object of the Act is to be achieved and the objects and functions of the Tribunal.
- [46]I am therefore satisfied that the claim against the proposed respondents is a retail tenancy dispute. Whether and to what extent the proposed respondents may be liable in respect of the claims made in the counter application will be a matter for determination after a hearing and a consideration of the evidence, findings on the evidence and submissions by the parties.
- [47]A respondent to an application may, in response to the application, apply to the tribunal for stated orders against another person who may or may not be a party to the proceeding (a counter application).[48] The counter application must be made in the approved form and (other than for a minor civil dispute) be included in or attached to the response. Once made, the counter application must be dealt with in the proceeding.[49]
- [48]Turning to the issue of the joinder of the proposed respondents, the procedure under rule 48 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules permits a counter application against the applicant, another (already named) respondent or a person who is not a party to the original proceeding. Rule 48 in this respect mirrors rule 178 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). UCPR rule 179 provides that a counterclaim must be in the approved form, must be included in the same document and must be served at the same time as the defence. Rule 50 mirrors UCPR rule 179 and provides that the counter application must be included in or attached to the response.
- [49]The effect of rule 50 of the QCATR is to require the counter application to be included in, or attached to, the response. Absent this, the leave of the tribunal is required to make a counter application. The tribunal may extend or shorten a time limit fixed by the QCAT Act, an enabling Act or the rules or waive compliance with another procedural requirement under the QCAT Act, an enabling Act or the rules.[50]
- [50]Similarly, a court may extend the time for the filing of the counterclaim under UCPR r 179.[51] The exercise of the discretion to extend the time for the filing of the counter application under rule 50 of the QCATR involves, in my view, the same discretion to be exercised when considering an extension of time to file a counterclaim under UCPR r 179.
- [51]As a statement of general principle, a party is required to establish at least an arguable case in respect of an application or a counter application (or a claim or a counterclaim) to a court or tribunal. The proposed counter application by the BCC must satisfy the test propounded by Barwick CJ in General Steel Industries v Commissioner for Railways[52]:
(a) plaintiff ought not to be denied access to the customary tribunal which deals with actions of the kind he brings, unless his lack of a cause of action - if that be the ground on which the court is invited, as in this case, to exercise its powers of summary dismissal - is clearly demonstrated. The test to be applied has been variously expressed; "so obviously untenable that it cannot possibly succeed"; "manifestly groundless"; "so manifestly faulty that it does not admit of argument"; "discloses a case which the Court is satisfied cannot succeed"; "under no possibility can there be a good cause of action"; "be manifest that to allow them" (the pleadings) "to stand would involve useless expense".
- [52]RMS admits that from on or about 1 July 2012 it failed to provide to the BCC any of the statements it was required to provide as to gross revenue or percentage rent; admits that it did not pay any percentage rent; and admits that it was in default of its obligations under the lease.[53] In light of these admissions, the claim against the proposed respondents could not be said to be manifestly groundless or untenable, indeed quite the opposite.
- [53]The claim against the proposed respondents is one which arises only by operation of the lease, the breach of the terms of which triggers the operation of the terms of, and obligations under, the guarantee. The claim against the proposed respondents is not a claim for arrears of rent. It is a claim under the guarantee directly arising out of the claim for the recovery of arrears of rent which, as against RMS, the BCC is entitled to pursue. In these circumstances, given the close nexus between (i) the operation of the terms of the lease and the entitlement of the BCC to pursue the claim for rent arrears against RMS, and (ii) the nature of the claim being pursued against the proposed respondents, I am satisfied that the claim against the proposed respondents is one which satisfies the test in General Steel Industries. I am satisfied that the claim against the proposed respondents is a retail tenancy dispute, the dispute being one about a retail shop lease. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed counter application discloses a reasonably arguable case against the proposed respondents.
- [54]It is appropriate that I exercise the discretion under s 61(1)(b) QCAT Act and extend the time for the BCC to file the amended response and counter application. In my view this is the order that should be made rather than an order joining the proposed respondents as parties in the proceeding pursuant to s 42 of the QCAT Act. For the sake of completeness I add that I would in any event be satisfied, for the reasons outlined, that joinder of the proposed respondents pursuant to s 42 QCAT Act is appropriate.
Orders
- [55]The appropriate order is:
- The time for filing the response and counter application by Brisbane City Council naming Real Management Solutions Pty Ltd, Elias Marus Philippou and Mounir Ibrahim as parties against whom the counter application is made and as provided for in rule 50 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), is extended to 18 May 2016.
Footnotes
[1] Lease, clause 2.
[2] Lease, schedule 5, clause 1.2.1.
[3] Lease, schedule 5, clause 1.2.3.
[4] Lease, schedule 5, clause 1.2.4.
[5] Amended response and counter application filed 18.05.16 and response to amended response and counter application filed 27.06.16
[6] Applicants’ submissions at [9].
[7] Amended response and counter application at 1(a).
[8] RSLA, Schedule Dictionary.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] [2004] RSLT 22.
[12] [2007] RSLT 7.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Jurisdiction Provisions) Amendment Act 2009 (Qld) s 1588.
[15] [2012] QCAT 208.
[16] Ibid at [50].
[17] Ibid at [171].
[18] [2012] QCAT 257.
[19] [2013] QCAT 507.
[20] Ibid at [30].
[21] Ibid at [32].
[22] RSLA s 3.
[23] RSLA s 4
[24] RSLA, Schedule
[25] RSLA s 12.
[26] RSLA, Part 5.
[27] RSLA, Part 6.
[28] RSLA s 25.
[29] RSLA s 27.
[30] RSLA, Part 6, Division 5.
[31] RSLA, Part 6, Division 7.
[32] RSLA, Part 6, Division 8A.
[33] RSLA s 50.
[34] RSLA ss 46 and 46AA.
[35] RSLA, Part 7.
[36] RSLA, Part 8.
[37] RSLA s 83.
[38] RSLA s 83(1).
[39] RSLA s 97(1)(b)(i).
[40] RSLA s 55(1).
[41] RSLA s 83(2)(b).
[42] RSLA s 22E(2).
[43] RSLA s 30(3).
[44] RSLA s 50.
[45] RSLA s 4(b).
[46] QCAT Act s 3(b).
[47] QCAT Act s 4(b).
[48] QCAT rules r 48.
[49] QCAT rules r 51(2).
[50] QCAT Act s 61(1).
[51] GP Phillips & Co Pty Ltd v Stantec Pty Ltd [2005] QDC 223.
[52] (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 129.
[53] Applicant’s response to counter application filed 27.06.16.