Maddren v Gateway Lifestyle[2020] QCAT 411

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

REASONS FOR DECISION

Proceedings OCL041-18

1. [1]
   Proceedings OCL041-18 were commenced on 23 May 2018.  The applicant was listed as “Mrs Carrie Stanfield acting on behalf of Gateway Lifestyle Coombabah Homeowners”.  The named respondent was Hammond Village Operations Pty Ltd trading as Gateway Lifestyle.
2. [2]
   In Part A of the application form, Mrs Stanfield indicated that the applicant was a group.  However, the application was signed by Mrs Stanfield alone.
3. [3]
   Appendix 11, attached to the application, included details of homeowners who objected to an increase in “water charges”.  The homeowners who signed the petition included Mr Maddren.  His signature is dated 24 April 2018.  The petition stated:

Home owners signing this petition of objection have read and understood the letter by Carrie Stanfield dated 22^nd April 2018.

4. [4]
   No copy of the letter dated 22 April 2018 was provided with the application.
5. [5]
   The relief sought by the applicant was set out as follows:

Under the Manufactured Homes Act (Residential Parks) 2003 – I wish the tribunal to make an order for Gateway Lifestyle to provide a full break-down of all costs in our site fees, under Division 4 / 73(1)(a)(b)(i) and (2)(a)(b)(c)(d)(i)(ii)

Refund overpaid site fees from the change event day as per section 74 (1-5 inclusive) as per our site agreements.

We wish the tribunal to make an order for Gateway Lifestyle to remove the existing sewerage component charges in total from our Site Fees.

For Gateway to abide by their Letter dated 1/12/2016 from Trent Ottawa, Director, Hammond Village Operations Pty Limited t/as Gateway Lifestyle Coombabah – paragraph 4, The site rent increase will apply for 12 months from 1^st January to 31^st December, 2017.  (Utility charges etc above CPI).

6. [6]
   Mrs Stanfield subsequently withdrew as an applicant to the proceedings. 
7. [7]
   On 29 April 2019, the Tribunal directed that William Paul Hewitson be joined as an applicant to the proceedings.
8. [8]
   On 15 July 2019, the Tribunal directed that Richard Homans be the lead applicant if no other lead applicants were advised.
9. [9]
   On 6 September 2019, at a compulsory conference, the application was dismissed by consent.  The agreement reached by the parties was in the following terms:

In consideration of Mr Richard Homans consenting to the dismissal of OCL005-18 and OCL041-18, Gateway Lifestyle agrees that from 1^st October 2019, the residents of GATEWAY LIFESTYLE VILLAGE COOMBABAH will be charged for water usage at the rate deemed by the local authority from time to time.

For clarity, the water charge will not include a sewerage component.

The parties consent to the dismissal of OCL005-18 & OCL041-18.

10. [10]
    The agreement was signed by Mr Homans as the applicant party.

Proceedings OCL026-20

11. [11]
    The current proceedings OCL026-20 were commenced on 5 March 2020.  The applicant is listed as Fredrick Maddren.  The named respondent is “Linda Nicastri Gateway Lifestyle”.
12. [12]
    The relief sought by Mr Maddren is:

I require all the monies paid for the Utility SEWAGE (sic), charged to me from the 5^th of October 2017 to the 1^st of April 2018 as water and for the SEWAGE (sic) charged from the 1^st of April 2018 to the 30^th of September 2019 to be REFUNDED IN FULL.

13. [13]
    On 16 April 2020, the Tribunal (differently constituted) directed the filing of submissions:

showing cause why Application OCL026-20 should not be dismissed because it is misconceived or otherwise an abuse or process given the substantive issue of the levy and recovery of sewerage charges at Gateway Lifestyle Coombabah has been previously determined in matter OCL041-18 together with matter OCL005-18 by an order made on 5 September 2019 by consent of the parties including Fredrick Maddren …

14. [14]
    In submissions filed on 24 April 2020, Mr Maddren stated (amongst other things) that ‘I was a co applicant in OCL041-18’.

Consideration

15. [15]
    I have had regard to Part 15 of the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 (Qld) (‘the Act’), which provides for the establishment of a homeowners’ committee at a residential park.  There is nothing in the Act which establishes the homeowners’ committee as having its own legal identity separate to that of the homeowners.
16. [16]
    I have also had regard to QCAT Practice Direction No 1 of 2009: Nomination of an agent to represent a group (‘the PD’), which provides that if a number of parties to a proceeding consider they have a common interest in the outcome, they may nominate one of their number to be an agent to represent all of them in a proceeding.
17. [17]
    Having regard to the Act and the PD, and notwithstanding his claim to have been a co-applicant, I am unable to identify that Mr Maddren was ever a party to proceedings OCL041-18.  The applicant parties at the time of the consent orders, as best as I am able to discern them, were Mr Hewitson and Mr Homan.  Mrs Stanfield had by that time withdrawn as an applicant.  The homeowners’ committee, and specifically “Gateway Lifestyle Coombabah Homeowners”, not having any legal identify of its own, could not have been a party to the proceeding.  Without having seen Mrs Stanfield’s letter dated 22 April 2018, I am not satisfied that the act of Mr Maddren signing a petition was alone sufficient to make him a party to proceedings
    OCL041-19.  There is otherwise nothing on the face of the petition to indicate that Mr Maddren and the other signatories intended, or consented, to be parties to a proceeding before the Tribunal.
18. [18]
    Section 47(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘the QCAT Act’) provides:

This section applies if the tribunal considers a proceeding or a part of a proceeding is—

1. (a)
   frivolous, vexatious or misconceived; or
2. (b)
   lacking in substance; or
3. (c)
   otherwise an abuse of process..

19. [19]
    The powers set out in s 47(2)(a) of the QCAT include dismissing the proceeding.
20. [20]
    I will assume without deciding that there may some overlap between proceedings OCL026-20 and OCL041-19.  Even if this is the case, I am not satisfied that s 47 applies in the present circumstances for the following reasons:

    1. (a)
       Mr Maddren has commenced proceedings OCL026-20 in his own name.  As set out above, I am not satisfied that Mr Maddren was a party to proceedings OCL041-19.  Consequently, there is no issue estoppel operating between Mr Maddren and Gateway Lifestyle.
    2. (b)
       Proceedings OCL041-19 were resolved by consent, and without the benefit of a published Tribunal decision.  In these circumstances, there is no line of reasoning adopted by the Tribunal in the earlier proceedings that would enable me to evaluate Mr Maddren’s prospects of success in the current proceedings.
21. [21]
    I decline to dismiss the application.  The application should be listed for a directions hearing to progress the matter.