Savage Resorts Pty Ltd v Maksymiuk
[2015] QCATA 86
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
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- Savage Resorts Pty Ltd v Maksymiuk[2015] QCATA 86
- Add to List
Savage Resorts Pty Ltd v Maksymiuk[2015] QCATA 86
Savage Resorts Pty Ltd v Maksymiuk[2015] QCATA 86
CITATION: | Savage Resorts Pty Ltd v Maksymiuk [2015] QCATA 86 |
PARTIES: | Savage Resorts Pty Ltd (Applicant/Appellant) v Richard Maksymiuk (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL498 -14 |
MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Justice Thomas, President |
DELIVERED ON: | 12 June 2015 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where notice to leave – where authority to issue notice to leave disputed – where adjournment to allow further evidence of authority – where tribunal did not accept further evidence established authority – where related proceedings in Court of Appeal – where stay granted pending decision of Court of Appeal – where application for injunction – whether balance of convenience favours grant of injunction Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 32 |
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
- [1]On 19 March 2015, I dismissed Mr Richard Maksymiuk’s application to strike out Savage Resorts Pty Ltd’s application for leave to appeal or appeal. At that time, I stayed the further hearing of the application by Savage Resorts pending a decision from the Court of Appeal in a related matter between Savage Resorts and Mr Maksymiuk.
- [2]In this proceeding, there was an outstanding application by Mr Maksymiuk for an injunction. I directed the parties to file and serve submissions. These are the reasons for my decision on that application.
- [3]Mr Maksymiuk says that the decision in this proceeding depends upon the decision in the Court of Appeal proceeding. He says that the Court of Appeal decision will provide answers to several “Renting Act” (Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008) questions and, therefore, this proceeding must not continue until the Court of Appeal proceeding is fully determined.
- [4]Savage Resorts submits that Mr Maksymiuk has not discharged the onus of establishing why an injunction should be granted. It states that Mr Maksymiuk has not shown a good arguable case on appeal. It submits that the appeal to the Court of Appeal was lodged simply to delay the inevitable. It says that Mr Maksymiuk has not established prejudice.
- [5]Mr Maksymiuk, in reply, submits that Savage Resorts has not established an arguable appeal in this proceeding. He submits that Savage Resorts has consistently failed to comply with the tribunal’s directions, that Savage Resorts has provided false information to the tribunal and has filed fresh evidence without leave. Mr Maksymiuk again urges this tribunal to dismiss Savage Resorts’ application for leave to appeal.
- [6]These parties have been to the tribunal numerous times. There needs to be an end to litigation but resolving this application for leave to appeal, before the Court of Appeal’s decision, will not achieve that result.
- [7]I agree that Mr Maksymiuk has, so far, not provided a convincing argument for leave to appeal but I do not agree that Mr Maksymiuk has not established prejudice. All of these applications relate to Mr Maksymiuk’s right to reside at Il Centro, the apartment building managed by Savage Resorts. If the tribunal terminates Mr Maksymiuk’s tenancy, and the Court of Appeal decides the tribunal is wrong, Mr Maksymiuk will have suffered prejudice.
- [8]The only prejudice Savage Resorts will suffer in the interim is, perhaps, a financial disadvantage, although none of Savage Resorts’ material refers to a specific financial disadvantage. The disadvantage that Savage Resorts might suffer is no different from the disadvantage it presently suffers because of the stay I ordered on 19 March 2015.
- [9]For present purposes, that stay has the same effect as an injunction. Mr Maksymiuk’s application does not urge any additional reason for an injunction, nor does he seek to prevent any additional actions by Savage Resorts.
- [10]The application for injunction is dismissed.