Aarons v Greenpoint Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QCATA 42

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Aarons v Greenpoint Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QCATA 42 PARTIES: ADAM AARONS (applicant/appellant) v GREENPOINT PTY LTD (first respondent) SCOTT MACINTOSH (second respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: APL369-24 ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S: Q11423-24 MATTER TYPE: Appeals DELIVERED ON: 19 February 2025 (decision) 11 September 2025 (reasons) HEARING DATE: 19 February 2025 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Judicial Member Rinaudo AM ORDERS: Pursuant to section 147 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), there is no error of fact or law in the decision of the original Tribunal dated 25 November 2024. Leave is not granted and the appeal is dismissed. If the applicant has not voluntarily vacated the premises by midnight on Sunday, 23 February 2025, the warrant of possession issued on 25 November 2024 will take effect on Monday, 24 February 2025 and is to be executed as soon as reasonably practical after taking effect and will remain in effect to expire on Friday, 28 February 2025. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – WHAT IS – GENERALLY – where the residential tenancy agreement was terminated on the grounds of objectional behaviour – where a warrant of possession was issued – where the applicant appeals those orders – where the applicant submits he was not given sufficient time to prepare for the hearing – where the -- 1 of 8 -- 2 applicant submits the material before the original decision maker was false – where the applicant submits the respondent’s submissions were baseless – whether the appeal should be allowed Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2009 (Qld) Allen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCATA 66 Campbell v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCATA 34 Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented First respondent: Self-represented Second respondent: Self-represented REASONS FOR DECISION [1] At the commencement of the hearing Mr Aarons (‘applicant’) advised the Tribunal that he would be vacating the premises on 23 February 2025. On that basis, the parties took some time to see whether they could reach an agreement by consent on the application. Ultimately, they were unable to do so, and the matter proceeded for determination by the Tribunal. The Tribunal notes that the applicant did indeed vacate the premises on 23 February 2025. [2] The applicant appeals an order made in the matter of Q11423-24, made by an Adjudicator on 25 November 2024, that: (a) the residential tenancy agreement between the parties be terminated as of midnight 12 December 2024 on the grounds of objectionable behaviour; (b) a warrant of possession was issued that authorised a police officer to enter the premises on Bayview Street, Runaway Bay, Queensland, 4216; (c) the warrant shall take effect on 16 December 2024 and will remain in effect to expire on 30 December 2024; (d) the warrant is to be executed as soon as reasonably practical after taking effect; and (e) entry under the warrant shall only be between the hours of 8:00am and 6:00pm. [3] The applicant relies on the following grounds of appeal:1 1 Application for leave to appeal or appeal, filed in the Tribunal on 10 December 2024, Part C. -- 2 of 8 -- 3 (a) I believe my rights as a defendant were not provided in this case as I was only advised on this case Q11423-24 would be heard with case Q8941- 24 at 19.18 on Thursday 21st of November giving me 1 business day to seek legal advice. This would make it impossible to obtain such advice, violating my legal right to do so. I also applied for a postponement which was refused. (b) The emails the claimant wanted the Adjudicator to see [were] available to the Adjudicator and the decision based upon those emails was made, however these emails are not in the QCASE portal for case Q11423-24 [and] therefore I had no way to prepare a defence, or to verify if they are genuine. (c) As it was not possible to see the emails used at the hearing, before the hearing, it was not possible for myself to provide other emails I had sent leading up to these emails, or if the emails the claimant sent are verified as genuine. (d) How did the emails become available to the Adjudicator, but were not entered on to QCASE if the claimant supplied the emails via the correct process. This is highly irregular. (e) As per these points my legal rights have been violated on several matters. (f) The claimant claims the emails she relied upon to obtain a decision took place months earlier, but never took any claim out at that time. The claimant knew I was not in Australia and she issued case Q11423-24 just 11 days before my case Q8941-24 was due to be heard. (g) The claimant requested both claims would be heard on the same day. This was granted just one working day before the hearing. (h) The claimant has no witness statements for her allegations, or CCTV footage. [4] As the applicant was vacating the premises, he advised that his primary concern in respect of the appeal was the finding that the tenancy be terminated on the basis of objectionable behaviour. Applicable law [5] The jurisdiction to hear appeals is conferred upon the Tribunal pursuant to section 25 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’). Section 25 states as follows: The Tribunal’s appeal jurisdiction is— (a) the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by section 26; and (b) the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by an enabling Act to hear and decide an appeal against a decision of another entity under that Act. [6] Section 26 of the QCAT Act states that: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide an appeal against a decision of the Tribunal in the circumstances mentioned in section 142. [7] The applicant appeals pursuant to section 142 of the QCAT Act. Subsection 142 (1) states as follows: -- 3 of 8 -- 4 A party to a proceeding may appeal to the Appeal Tribunal against a decision of the Tribunal in the proceeding if a judicial member did not constitute the Tribunal in the proceeding. [8] Subsection 142 (3) states that an appeal under subsection (1) against any of the listed decisions of the Tribunal may be made only if the party has obtained the Appeal Tribunal’s leave to appeal. [9] In Allen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCATA 66 at [2], Judicial Member McGill SC summarised the approach to leave in the Appeal Tribunal: As a general proposition, when leave to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal is required, it will be granted only where there is a reasonable argument that the decision was attended by error and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice caused by that error, or where the appeal raises a question of general important upon which further argument and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal would be to the public advantage. An Appeal Tribunal would not usually disturb findings of fact on appeal if the evidence is capable of supporting the finding, and it is not contrary to compelling interference. If leave to appeal is granted, the appeal is by way of rehearing so far as it is against a decision on a question of fact, or of mixed fact and law: the QCAT Act section 147. Otherwise it is an appeal which will only correct an error of law: the QCAT Act section 146. [10] The principles were also referred to by Senior Member Brown and Member Traves in Campbell v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCATA 34 at [17]: The relevant principles to be applied in determining whether to grant leave are well established: is there a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision; is there a reasonable prospect that the applicant will obtain substantial relief; is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by some error; is there a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the appellate court or Tribunal, would be to the public advantage. [11] The enabling Act is the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2009 (Qld) (‘Residential Tenancies Act’). In particular, section 414A of the Residential Tenancies Act gives jurisdiction to QCAT to hear and decide any matter arising under the Act. Relevant sections to the appeal are referred to in the discussion section below. [12] Section 147 of the QCAT Act deals with deciding appeals on a question of fact or mixed law and fact. It notes in subsection (2) that appeals must be decided by way of rehearing, with or without the hearing of additional evidence as decided by the Appeal Tribunal. Subsection (3) states: In deciding the appeal, the Appeal Tribunal may— (a) Confirm or amend the decision; or (b) Set aside the decision and substitute its own decision; or (c) Set aside the decision and return the matter to the Tribunal or other entity who made the decision for reconsideration. [13] In the usual course, leave to appeal will usually only be granted where it is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant and where there is a reasonable -- 4 of 8 -- 5 argument that there was an error to be corrected.2 In this case, leave to appeal is required as the matter concerns the proceedings for a minor civil dispute.3 The present appeal is on a question of mixed law and fact. [14] When dealing with an application for leave to appeal, the appeal must be decided by way of rehearing. The Appeal Tribunal may allow additional evidence. The Appeal Tribunal may confirm or amend the decision or set aside the decision and substitute its own decision or set aside the decision and return the matter to the Tribunal or other entity for reconsideration.4 Submissions [15] The applicant submits that the objectionable order was obtained based on false information.5 He was concerned that the emails may have been altered and that the number of emails were substantially less than the number referred to by the Adjudicator, possibly by as many as 200. [16] In the reasons for the decision, the Adjudicator referred to some 464 emails.6 The applicant submitted that he was out of the country at the time although his application for compensation had been listed for hearing on 25 November 2024. He submitted that: (a) he had not had sufficient time to prepare for the respondent’s application; (b) he got the material late; (c) the decisions were mainly based on lies; (d) the submission made by the respondent that she was scared was baseless; and (e) he could not instruct lawyers as the notice time was too short. [17] He considered that the emails had been, or may have been, doctored. There were a number of emails that he said he could not find and that he was at a disadvantage appearing by telephone. [18] The respondent submitted that they had made the application to the Tribunal on 13 November 2024 and that the documents had been sent by registered mail to the respondent’s address for service, which meant that there had been 12 days between filing and when the matter came before the Tribunal on 25 November 2024. [19] The respondent submitted that: (a) all the emails received from the applicant had been submitted; (b) there had been no “doctoring” of the emails; and (c) they had been forwarded to the Tribunal as received by them. The Decision under review 2 Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294. 3 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142(3)(a)(i). 4 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 147(3). 5 Applicant’s Submissions, filed in the Tribunal on 28 January 2025. 6 Transcript of Proceedings, 25 November 2024, 1-48, l 15. -- 5 of 8 -- 6 [20] The Adjudicator made reference to the emails in the following way:7 There are some very thinly veiled threats that are made throughout there directly to you, Miss Vivlios, throughout it. The sheer volume alone, 464, from May to October, is ludicrous. There’s nothing that needed to be – if something dire had happened, I would understand that volume. If something catastrophic, yes, absolutely, perhaps that would be warranted, but these are not short emails either. These are very long personal emails with a personal attack that delve into other issues, which, you know, Mr Aarons, when I was asked for his submissions, and I heard and listened to him describe that, he resorted to as well. There are threats to call the police, there is name calling, calling you delusional, all sorts of commentary that’s being made, and other – and suggesting that other people share the view and some sort of almost rallying the troops, I should say. It is very threatening. It’s very intimidating, and it – the volume alone is harassment because it’s so unwarranted in the circumstance, and then to go to Mr Macintosh as well as the owner and repeat a lot of that information and send it to him. I mean, three or four pages long, each email, sometimes multiple on one day that I could see as I was tallying up the numbers, is quite extreme, particularly given so – nothing wrong, per se, with the apartment. These are just items that he felt needed to be repaired, and you were kind enough to entertain that and to conduct them. [...] But I am minded under – having considered section 297 but also 345, the recurrency, the frequency of the behaviour, I do think it falls within harassment. I do think it’s intimidating, I – particularly given the threats contained within those emails, and I’ve cited a few of them during the hearing today that really stood out to me that I thought were very inappropriate, and certainly stepped well over the line, and not only that, but the sheer number is just horrendous. [21] The Adjudicator went on to say:8 I am satisfied – in the circumstances, I think the tenancy is just not viable. I think it does fall within the definitions of objectionable behaviour, given it’s not – obviously not public or community housing, but under the sections that I’ve cited, there is a recurrent behaviour, and whilst it may not be fact to face, it is consistent and written down, and there is a lot of derogatory comments that are made and a lot of very thinly veiled threats that are made against yourself, which is – and just bombarding someone alone can – is – can be considered harassing, and I think 464 emails between that period is extreme. I think it falls within that criteria. [22] In respect of the notice issue raised by the applicant, the Adjudicator noted:9 Now, I know he accessed [QCASE] on the 18th of November. I [know] this information was there on the 18th of November, as we confirmed it was, having being filed on the 14th, which is entirely normal in terms of these applications. So Mr Aarons – whilst he’s away at the moment, I think he’s had ample time to respond to this, and whilst he raises issues in terms of, you know, somewhat suggesting that it’s retaliatory, which I think is where he was going in terms of the initial application, I don’t find that that’s the case, because this behaviour 7 Ibid, ll 14-33, 42-47. 8 Ibid, 1-49, ll 5-12. 9 Ibid, ll 25-35. -- 6 of 8 -- 7 has persisted far beyond that application, and he was, you know – it’s – and it’s – you know, he was renewed shortly thereafter, and then when you were going through just resolution and all of that at the same time. So I don’t feel the two are connected, but his pattern of behaviour has persisted, and in fact, at times, escalated somewhat concerningly. [23] The Adjudicator found the files had been uploaded to QCASE on 18 November 2024 when the applicant accessed QCASE. The Adjudicator found that, during the course of the proceedings, the applicant was more than able to speak about each of those emails. In this regard, the Adjudicator said:10 He is very familiar with the content, and I am satisfied that he has had sufficient time, given this is an urgent application, to consider the matter and file a response. [24] Then the Adjudicator considered the applicant’s application for compensation (Q8941-24), which raised concerns with the wallpaper, kitchen, microwave, and balcony light, claiming some $19,000 in compensation. The Adjudicator determined that the claims were without foundation and the applicant’s application for compensation was dismissed. [25] Having regard to the applicant being out of the country, the Adjudicator decided that the tenancy agreement be terminated from midnight on 12 December 2024. [26] The applicant sought and was granted a stay of that order, so as to appeal. Discussion [27] There is clearly a breakdown of any sort of relationship between the tenant, the landlord, and the agent. It was apparent to me having regard to the behaviour of the applicant during the Tribunal hearing, that many of the issues complained of by the agent and the landlord were justified. It is ludicrous to suggest that the emails sent by the applicant to the respondent, which were provided to the Tribunal, would have in some way been ‘doctored’. There is absolutely no reason why the respondent would resort to such behaviour. [28] As the decision of the Adjudicator was based almost entirely on the contents of the emails and described by her in the ways set out above, it would not have been appropriate, given the findings of the Adjudicator, to have adjourned the matter. The termination was clearly on the basis that the emails needed to come to an end. [29] It is not surprising that the respondent’s application was filed and made returnable on the same day as the applicant’s application. The applicant was fully aware that his own application for compensation would be heard on 25 November 2024, and as such it can be assumed he was always intending to appear at that hearing by telephone. [30] As was noted at the outset, the applicant has now vacated the premises. In my view, it was not unreasonable for the Adjudicator to make a finding that the tenancy be terminated on the basis of objectionable behaviour. [31] In all the circumstances I am satisfied that there has been no error of law or fact made by the Adjudicator during the hearing of the application and accordingly the applicant’s appeal must be dismissed. 10 Ibid, 1-50, ll 37-38. -- 7 of 8 -- 8 Orders [32] It is the decision of the Appeal Tribunal that: Pursuant to section 147 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), there is no error of fact or law in the decision of the original Tribunal dated 25 November 2024. Leave is not granted and the appeal is dismissed. If the applicant has not voluntarily vacated the premises by midnight on Sunday, 23 February 2025, the warrant of possession issued on 25 November 2024 will take effect on Monday, 24 February 2025 and is to be executed as soon as reasonably practical after taking effect and will remain in effect to expire on Friday, 28 February 2025. -- 8 of 8 --