Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Armstrong v Triple One Group Pty Ltd (No 1)[2016] QCATA 112

Armstrong v Triple One Group Pty Ltd (No 1)[2016] QCATA 112

CITATION:

Armstrong v Triple One Group Pty Ltd t/a Robert James Realty (No 1) [2016] QCATA 112

PARTIES:

GARY ARMSTRONG

(applicant)

v

TRIPLE ONE GROUP PTY LTD T/A ROBERT JAMES REALTY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL091-16

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Carmody

DELIVERED ON:

1 April 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

  1. The application to stay a decision is refused.

LEGISLATION:

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 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. [1]
    The applicant applied to stay the operation of a termination order and execution of a warrant of possession order by a Magistrate, sitting as the Tribunal, for non-compliance with a Form 12 Notice to Leave.
  2. [2]
    On 22 March 2016, the Tribunal ordered an interim suspension of the termination order and warrant to allow the applicant to provide further submissions in support of his stay application.
  3. [3]
    On a preliminary view of the material, the Tribunal is unconvinced of the merits of the applicant’s claims that the respondents committed “offences” under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) based on an unproven “verbal agreement”.
  4. [4]
    Nor is it convinced that the Magistrate failed to take into account relevant considerations and denied the applicant natural justice.
  5. [5]
    The applicant’s assessed chances of success on appeal is a factor weighing heavily against granting a stay.
  6. [6]
    The applicant was given two months’ notice to leave the property in late December 2015. He has furnished no evidence that he would suffer excessive hardship should the stay not be granted.
  7. [7]
    On the other hand, the balance of convenience favours allowing the lessors to move back into the property, as they wish to do, pending appeal.

ORDERS

  1. [8]
    It is the decision of the Appeal Tribunal that:
    1. The application to stay the Minor Civil Dispute is refused.
    2. The Warrant of Possession issued on 18 March 2016 is re-instated to take effect on 15 April 2016 and remain in effect for 14 days, to expire at 6:00pm on 29 April 2016.
    3. The Warrant be executed as soon as reasonably practicable after taking effect.
    4. Entry under the Warrant shall only be between the hours of 8:00am and 6:00pm.
Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Gary Armstrong v Triple One Group Pty Ltd t/a Robert James Realty (No 1)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Armstrong v Triple One Group Pty Ltd (No 1)

  • MNC:

    [2016] QCATA 112

  • Court:

    QCATA

  • Judge(s):

    Carmody J

  • Date:

    01 Apr 2016

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.