Bibawi v Moreton Bay Housing Service [2026] QCA 92

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Bibawi v Moreton Bay Housing Service [2026] QCA 92 PARTIES: MAGDY BIBAWI (applicant) v MORETON BAY HOUSING SERVICE (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 443 of 2026 QCATA No 469 of 2025 DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Referral under r 982 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules ORIGINATING COURT: Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeal Tribunal at Brisbane – Unreported, 19 January 2026 (Member McLean- Williams) DELIVERED ON: 19 May 2026 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers JUDGES: Brown JA ORDERS: The Court directs the Registrar that: 1. The three applications referred to the applications Judge under r 982(1) of the UCPR not be accepted for filing and issuing by the Registry. 2. The applicant is not permitted to file any further documents in the Registry in this matter other than a list of authorities and if relevant any reply to any submissions of the respondent prior to hearing and is to apply for leave of the Court to file any further documents concerning his application and any appeal at the outset of the hearing on 22 July 2026. CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – FILING DOCUMENTS AND ACCESS THERETO – where the applicant sought to file applications with the Registrar – where the Registrar referred the matter to the Court pursuant to r 982 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – whether the applications should be accepted by the Registry Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 982 Allen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (2024) 18 QR 79; [2024] QCA 24, cited -- 1 of 3 -- 2 [1] BROWN JA: The Registrar has referred a matter under r 982(1) of the UCPR to me as the sitting applications judge, as to whether three applications that have been sought to be filed at the Registry by the applicant should be permitted to be filed and issued by the Registry. The Registrar was entitled under r 982 to do so. [2] The applicant has applied under s 150 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act) to appeal a decision of the Appeal Tribunal of the Queensland Civil Appeals Tribunal which refused to overturn a refusal by a QCAT adjudicator to declare a notice to remedy breach unlawful under s 246A of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (QCAT Decision). The appeal rights from a decision of the QCAT Appeal Tribunal to this Court are relevantly limited to a final decision.1 Such an appeal is confined to a question of law and only if a party has obtained the Court’s leave to appeal under s 150(3) of the QCAT Act. [3] In Allen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission,2 this Court recently discussed the relevant principles applicable to the granting of leave to appeal under s 150 of the QCAT Act. As to the requirement under s 150(3)(a) that the appeal be only on a question of law, appeals from the Appeal Tribunal must be confined to only pure questions of law. The Court has no jurisdiction to consider an appeal on a question of fact or on a mixed question of fact and law. If a question of law is the subject of the proposed appeal, the Court must still determine whether to grant leave to appeal. While this Court has an unfettered discretion as to the granting of leave, an applicant will generally be required to establish that: (a) there is a reasonable argument that there is an error of law to be corrected; or (b) leave is necessary to correct a substantial injustice, or that an important point of principle sufficient to warrant the grant of leave has been identified. [4] The applicant has filed an application for leave to appeal and an amended application for leave to appeal together with 23 other applications, including 21 applications to adduce new evidence. He has also filed 17 Affidavits and 25 supplementary submissions. [5] I have determined that none of the referred three applications should be filed and issued by the Registry. The applications raise matters which are irrelevant and cannot properly be raised before the Court of Appeal and are oppressive and an abuse of process. [6] In relation to the first application to amend the application for leave to appeal, the application which is referred to as application 1, it appears to raise an error of fact and procedural fairness arising out of an email from the acting Deputy Senior Registrar of QCAT dated 13 May 2026 in respect of “Form 40 Application for miscellaneous matters filed 28 October 2025”. That is not relevant to the present appeal nor a matter that can relevantly be raised as part of an appeal to this Court. The email postdates the decision the subject of the applicant’s application for leave to appeal in CA 443/26 and is irrelevant to the present application for leave to appeal. The filing of that application should therefore be refused. 1 See s 150(2) QCAT Act, although the applicant does raise other provisions of the QCAT Act. 2 (2024) 18 QR 79; [2024] QCA 24. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 [7] The second application, which is an application to adduce evidence of delay and procedural oversight which may form valid grounds for an appeal, appears to relate to the same email of 13 May 2026, an email of the Court of Appeal Registry and other conduct of various persons postdating the decision. For the same reasons as application 1, and also that the application otherwise seeks to raise conduct irrelevant to the QCAT Decision, it is not relevant to the present application for leave to appeal the QCAT Decision. It should not be permitted to be filed. [8] As to the third application which refers to “Amend Form 69 filed on 5/2/26 application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal”, it replicates the amended application for leave already filed on 5 February 2026 in a number of respects. To the extent it seeks to add the email of 13 May 2026, it is irrelevant to the present application for leave to appeal. Similarly, it appears to seek to impermissibly raise complaints about the applicant’s dealings with the Registry and it otherwise cannot be identified from the document what amendment is sought to be made. It should therefore not be permitted to be filed and issued by the Registry. [9] The applicant has now filed multiple applications, affidavits and supplementary submissions in this matter in what is essentially a fairly confined appeal under s 150 of the QCAT Act. The date for the hearing of the application for leave to appeal and any appeal for which leave is given has been set down on 22 July 2026 for half a day. Given the applications that the applicant has already filed, which will have to be determined on the date of hearing if pursued by the applicant, and the fact that I have determined that it is not appropriate for the three applications referred to me to be issued by the Registry because they are irrelevant to the QCAT Decision and are an abuse of process, I consider that this matter requires some management by the Court in order to ensure that the matter can be heard within the time allocated on 22 July 2026. To this end I direct the registrar that the applicant is not to be permitted to file any further documents other than his list of authorities or any reply to any submissions of the respondent prior to the date of hearing. If the applicant wishes to seek to file any further document other than those specified, the applicant is to apply to the Court on the day of hearing for leave to file those documents at the outset of the hearing and the Court can determine at that time whether he will be permitted to do so. [10] As the filing and issuing of documents is a matter which falls within the Registry I direct the Registrar under r 982(3) UCPR that: 1. The three applications referred to the applications Judge under r 982(1) of the UCPR not be accepted for filing and issuing by the Registry. 2. The applicant is not permitted to file any further documents in the Registry in this matter other than a list of authorities and if relevant any reply to any submissions of the respondent prior to hearing and is to apply for leave of the Court to file any further documents concerning his application and any appeal at the outset of the hearing on 22 July 2026. -- 3 of 3 --