Attlee v Morgan & Anor [2021] QCATA 24

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Attlee v Morgan & Anor [2021] QCATA 24 PARTIES: MADELEINE ATTLEE (applicant/appellant) v MADISON MORGAN (first respondent) LUCIA MCIVOR (second respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: APL367-20 ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S: MCDT2691-19 Brisbane MATTER TYPE: Appeals DELIVERED ON: 23 February 2021 HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Howe ORDERS: The application by Madeleine Attlee for a stay of the decision made 25 November 2020 is refused. The application by Madison Morgan and Lucia McIvor for a notice to witness to attend hearing or produce a document is refused. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – where an application to stay the decision below made – where the decision was a money award – where only small part of the award was challenged in the application for leave to appeal – where the suggestion of a retrospective application for termination to be brought on the hearing of the appeal did not sensibly support the stay – where the order made below should not be stayed APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented Respondents: Self-represented -- 1 of 2 -- 2 This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) REASONS FOR DECISION The respondents filed a residential tenancy dispute application in the Tribunal claiming money from the applicant. All three parties were tenants of a residential property. The applicant moved out early though towards the end of the fixed term tenancy and the respondents wanted the applicant to contribute a share for rent and cleaning. The claim was heard by an Adjudicator on 25 November 2020 who ordered the applicant to pay the respondents $2,820 within 28 days. The applicant filed an application seeking leave to appeal that decision on 8 December 2020 together with an application to stay the order made by the Adjudicator. The application for stay was placed before me for decision on 4 February 2021 and on 5 February 2021 I refused that application. The applicant seeks reasons for the refusal. The award to the respondents was $2,820. In the application to stay the decision of the Adjudicator the reason given justifying the application is that the Adjudicator incorrectly calculated the amount based on the date of departure of the applicant from the premises rather than the date she was paid to. In a supporting submission the applicant states she actually paid rent to 22 November 2019, not when she left on 15 November 2019. The difference is her one week’s contribution to rent of $210. There is nothing said about the balance of $2,610 she was ordered to pay the respondents. Presumably there is no argument about that being owed on the basis of the award made by the Adjudicator. The respondents filed a response to the application for stay and say that the applicant only paid rent to the date of her departure on 15 November 2019 and the decision of the Adjudicator was correct. The applicant suggests in the application for leave to appeal that a retrospective termination application based on “hardship and injury” will be pursued at the appeal. That has doubtful prospects of success given no application for termination was made at the hearing before the Adjudicator. The suggestion about such an application is vague however and that suggestion does not bolster the application to stay the compensation decision already made. The respondents are entitled to the benefit of the money award in their favour until and only if the application for leave to appeal and appeal succeeds. On the limited material filed in the appeal proceedings there is small prospect of the applicant successfully overturning the decision below save at best to the amount of $210. The application to stay the decision of the Adjudicator is therefore refused. -- 2 of 2 --