Uren v Harcourts Broadbeach Waters
[2018] QCATA 9
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
- Uren v Harcourts Broadbeach Waters[2018] QCATA 9
- Add to List
Uren v Harcourts Broadbeach Waters[2018] QCATA 9
Uren v Harcourts Broadbeach Waters[2018] QCATA 9
CITATION: | Uren v Harcourts Broadbeach Waters [2018] QCATA 9 |
PARTIES: | Peter Uren (Applicant) v Harcourts Broadbeach Waters (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL303-17 |
MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Cranwell |
DELIVERED ON: | 29 January 2018 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – application to extend time for leave to appeal PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TIME, EXTENSION AND ABRIDGEMENT – where the applicant filed a claim for leave to appeal – where application for leave to appeal was filed out of time – where the applicant filed an application for an extension of time – whether application for an extension of time should be granted Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 3, s 61 Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 419, s 420 Coppens v Water Wise Design Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 309 Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor [2001] QCAT 229 |
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 4 July 2017, the Tribunal ordered the Residential Tenancies Authority to pay a $2,360 rental bond to the parties as follows:
- $678.27 to Mr Uren.
- $1,681.73 to Harcourts Broadbeach Waters.
- [2]On 13 September 2017, over two months later, Mr Uren filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal. The application was filed out of time, so Mr Uren also filed an application for an extension of time.
- [3]Section 61 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (the QCAT Act) gives the Tribunal power to extend a time limit fixed for the start of a proceeding. The Tribunal cannot extend time if to do so would cause prejudice or detriment to a party to a proceeding, not able to be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or damages. Harcourt Broadbeach Waters has not asserted that it will suffer any prejudice through an extension that cannot be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or damages.
- [4]The relevant factors to be considered by the Tribunal in determining whether an extension of time should be granted were summarised in Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor:[1]
- Whether a satisfactory explanation (or “good reason”) is shown to account for the delay.
- The strength of the case the applicant wishes to bring (assuming it is possible for some view on this to be formed on the preliminary material).
- The length of the delay.
- Overall, whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension. This usually calls for some analysis of the above factors considered in combination.
- [5]
Each party is aware of the required time limits and the fair approach is to require that limits be complied with unless there is a compelling reason (such as those listed above) to the contrary. This is fair for all parties. Compliance with time limits also will lead to disposition of matters in the most efficient and quick way. Compliance with time limits is also consistent with the public interest in finality of litigation ...
Reason for the delay
- [6]Mr Uren submitted that his delay was due to his health conditions. He outlined a history of a seizure in April 2016, then stated:
I suffered a relapse around August 3 and was rushed to Gold Coast Hospital and spent a further 1 week in Hospital.
Throughout the months of July until now I have attended both Gold Coast and Robina Hospitals for numerous outpatient treatments, including tests on Lungs, Heart, Kidneys etc.
Most importantly as can be seen from the attached copy of my Blood pressure results my Blood Pressure has been extremely abnormal.
At the Gold Coast Hospital last week the Doctor recorded a reading of 100 of 60. (sic)
During early September I suffered 2 falls. Once my daughter was here and assisted me to bed and Rest.
The other experience we called the Ambulance Service and 2 Officers attended to supply treatment.
In simple words I have not been well.
- [7]Mr Uren supplied a record of his blood pressure readings taken in November 2017, which is after the application for leave to appeal or appeal was lodged. Notwithstanding his claims of hospitalisation, outpatient treatments and other medical investigations, no other medical records were provided in support of the application for an extension of time. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that Mr Uren suffered from a medical condition which prevented him from lodging an application for leave to appeal or appeal within time.
Length of delay
- [8]Section 143(3) of the QCAT Act requires that a party must file an application for leave to appeal or appeal within 28 days of the receipt of the decision. I consider Mr Uren’s delay of over a month to be considerable.
The strength of the case - prospects on appeal
- [9]I am not persuaded that Mr Uren’s application for leave to appeal or appeal has any merit.
- [10]Mr Uren’s application for minor civil dispute – residential tenancy dispute, as it was filed with the Tribunal, was for the refund of $3,575 in rent. The application related to issues Mr Uren had regarding keys, a pool scoop, the pool filter, ceiling fans, air conditioning, the oven and hotplates. I note that Mr Uren’s material seems to contemplate an order for a rent decrease. However, no such application was made and Mr Uren’s application was said to be pursuant to s 419 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld).
- [11]Section 419 applies if a lessor or tenant under a residential tenancy agreement claims that there has been a breach of a term of the agreement. The section allows the tenant to apply to the tribunal for an order about the breach. Section 420 sets out the orders the Tribunal can make if an application about a breach of residential tenancy agreement is made to it. The orders includes an order for compensation.
- [12]The way Mr Uren seems to have approached his complaints indicates that what he was really seeking was compensation for a loss of amenity. That is not what is contemplated by s 419. For that section to apply, there has to be a breach of the residential tenancy agreement identified. While Mr Uren no doubt had concerns about the various matters raised, he has not identified any terms of the residential tenancy agreement which he claims were breached.
Is it in the interests of justice to grant the extension?
- [13]The interests of justice do not favour an extension. As Thomas J noted in Coppens, finality in litigation is highly desirable. The Tribunal’s obligation under s 3(b) of the QCAT Act to deal with matters, fairly, economically and quickly would not be achieved by allowing Mr Uren to file this application after a considerable delay.
Conclusion
- [14]While it will not suffer significant prejudice by Mr Uren’s delay, Harcourts Broadbeach Waters is entitled to the benefit of the Tribunal’s decision. The application for an extension of time should be refused. The application for leave to appeal or appeal is therefore dismissed.