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

Trigenis v L J Hooker Salisbury[2016] QCATA 51

Trigenis v L J Hooker Salisbury[2016] QCATA 51

CITATION:

Trigenis v L J Hooker Salisbury [2016] QCATA 51

PARTIES:

Peter Trigenis

(Applicant/Appellant)

v

L J Hooker Salisbury

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL380 -15

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane 

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Stilgoe OAM

DELIVERED ON:

12 April 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

  1. Leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – RESIDENTIAL TENANCY – whether grounds for leave to appeal

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

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]
    Peter Trigenis moved into his sister’s property. It was always Ms Trigenis’ intention that Mr Trigenis pay rent, so she engaged L J Hooker Salisbury to manage the tenancy. Mr Trigenis never paid rent. L J Hooker issued a notice to remedy breach and then a notice to leave. Mr Trigenis did not pay rent, so L J Hooker applied to the tribunal for a termination of the tenancy. The tribunal terminated the tenancy on 25 August 2015.
  2. [2]
    Mr Trigenis wants to appeal that decision. Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.[1] Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.[2]
  3. [3]
    Mr Trigenis’ submissions in support of his application for leave to appeal are not helpful. He has revised the story in Revelations, explaining that various characters, including members of his family, are the “ten horns of the living serpent”. Mr Trigenis may be unhappy with his family, and even with L J Hooker, but he has not pointed to any error by the tribunal, any error of fact or any ground that might be the basis for a successful application.
  1. [4]
    I have considered the evidence. I read the transcript. There is nothing in the transcript to persuade me that the tribunal should have taken a different view of the facts. There is no reasonably arguable case that the tribunal was in error. Leave to appeal should be refused.

Footnotes

[1]   QCAT Act, s 142(3)(a)(i).

[2] Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 at [3].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Trigenis v L J Hooker Salisbury

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Trigenis v L J Hooker Salisbury

  • MNC:

    [2016] QCATA 51

  • Court:

    QCATA

  • Judge(s):

    Senior Member Stilgoe OAM

  • Date:

    12 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.