Brewer v Black [2013] QCATA 264

CITATION: Brewer v Black [2013] QCATA 264 PARTIES: Catherine Brewer (Appellant) v JPC & MM Black (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: APL280 -13 MATTER TYPE: Appeals HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe OAM, Senior Member DELIVERED ON: 30 September 2013 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: 1. Leave to appeal refused CATCHWORDS: MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – TENANCY - where application filed out of time – where application to extend time – whether tribunal has power to extend time the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 61 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41. Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577 Lowe v Aspley [2010] QCATA 59 APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): The appeal tribunal heard and determined this matter on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. REASONS FOR DECISION -- 1 of 2 -- 2 [1] Ms Brewer is a tenant of the Blacks. They gave her notice of a proposed rent increase on 23 November 2012. Ms Brewer asked the agent how the increase was calculated. She received a response on 8 January 2013 and filed a dispute resolution request the same day. Ms Brewer then filed an application in the tribunal, asking for an order that the rental increase be $23 per week, not $40 per week as proposed. The tribunal dismissed Ms Brewer’s claim because the application was out of time. [2] Ms Brewer wants to appeal that learned Member’s decision. She says that the tribunal has power to extend time under s 61(a) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). [3] Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary. The question whether or not leave to appeal should be granted is usually addressed according to established principles. Is there a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision?1 Is there a reasonable prospect that the applicant will obtain substantive relief?2 Is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice caused by some error?3 Is there a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the appeals tribunal, would be to the public advantage?4 [4] Ms Brewer referred the appeals tribunal to the decision of Ryan v Cornwall5. That decision related to an extension of time under the Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld). Ms Brewer’s claim is under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld). [5] As Judge Kingham has already determined, the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act is proscriptive about the requirements for issuing notices and commencing proceedings.6 The tribunal has no power to extend time. The learned Member’s decision was correct and I can see no reason to come to a different view. [6] There is no question of general importance that should be determined by the appeals tribunal. There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Member was in error. There is no reasonable prospect of substantive relief on appeal. There is no evidence that a substantial injustice will result if leave is not granted. Leave to appeal should be refused 1 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41. 2 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 at 2. 3 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41. 4 Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 at 389; McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577 at 578, 580. 5 [2010] QCAT 212. 6 Lowe v Aspley [2010] QCATA 59 at [10]. -- 2 of 2 --