Bouahom v Allen [2013] QCATA 255

CITATION: Bouahom v Allen [2013] QCATA 255 PARTIES: Ms Layvanh Bouahom (Appellant) V Ms Isabella Margaret Allen (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: APL285-13 MATTER TYPE: Appeals HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Hon K Cullinane QC, Judicial Member DELIVERED ON: 24 September 2013 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: Leave to appeal refused. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – RESIDENTIAL TENANCY – where the Tribunal ordered that a tenancy agreement between the applicant and respondent be terminated and ordered that a warrant of possession be issued in respect of the premises – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal that decision – where the applicant contends the premises were owned by it – whether leave to appeal should be granted APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Tribunal of 4 of July 2013 ordering that a residential tenancy agreement between the parties be terminated for failure to leave and ordering the issue of a warrant of possession. Some further incidental orders were made. The -- 1 of 2 -- 2 matter is a minor civil dispute and by virtue of s 142 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (the Act) leave to appeal is required. [2] In order to appeal some particular reason must be shown. This might be because some point of general importance arises or because leave is required to correct an injustice or because of some other reason. [3] The matter concerned an alleged tenancy of premises between the parties. [4] The Applicant strongly denied there had been a tenancy. Indeed she contended that she was the owner of the premises. [5] When the matter first came before the Tribunal the Applicant did not appear. She subsequently applied for a reopening of the matter (the relevant orders having been made) on the grounds that she had no knowledge of the matter. She told the Tribunal that she did not have a key to the letter box. On the following day the Tribunal set aside the orders and proceeded to hear the matter with both parties appearing. It is obvious that there had been substantial litigation in the Supreme Court concerning property which included the premises the subject of these proceedings. These appear to have been settled. The Respondent was not a party to those matters. The parties were the Respondent’s father and the Applicant and a company. [6] The ground of appeal which would be advanced on the appeal if leave was granted is that she was unable to defend herself because she could not access the mailbox which contained the documents. [7] In her solicitor’s outline, objection is also taken to a lack of opportunity to prepare given that the matter proceeded on 4 July, the day after she was notified of the hearing. [8] I am not persuaded that there was anything unfair in the matter proceeding on 4 July. It is obvious that she had adequate opportunity to and did in fact advance her case. [9] The Tribunal was correct, in my view, in concluding that there was evidence of the tenancy and the entitlement to the orders was made out. The material relating to the litigation between the Applicant and the Respondent’s father does not preclude the making of the order made. [10] The matter does not raise any question or point which would justify the grant of leave. [11] The application is refused. -- 2 of 2 --