Chiappin v Brisbane Housing Company [2011] QCATA 238

CITATION: Chiappin v Brisbane Housing Company [2011] QCATA 238 PARTIES: Samantha Chiappin (Applicant) v Brisbane Housing Company (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: APL240-11 MATTER TYPE: Appeals HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Richard Oliver, Senior Member Michelle Howard, Member DELIVERED ON: 30 August 2011 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: Leave to appeal is refused. CATCHWORDS: MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – application for leave to appeal – where orders made by consent Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 142 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 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 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): This proceeding was heard and determined on the papers in the absence of the parties pursuant to section 32(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act). -- 1 of 3 -- 2 REASONS FOR DECISION Richard Oliver, Senior Member [1] I have had the benefit of reading the reasons of Member Howard, in draft. I agree with her reasons, and her conclusions, and the order she proposes. Michelle Howard, Member [2] Brisbane Housing Company filed an application seeking orders for termination of a tenancy and for payment of rental arrears against their tenant, Ms Chiappin. The application was first listed for hearing on 24 May 2011. On the request of the parties representatives, the proceeding was adjourned. When the proceeding was next listed for hearing on 9 June 2011, the tribunal was informed by representatives of both parties that the parties had reached agreement. [3] The tribunal was asked to make orders in accordance with that agreement that Ms Chiappin pay her fortnightly rent when due and a further $66 per fortnight until the arrears outstanding and the QCAT filing fees of $184 had been fully paid and that the application for termination be adjourned to be relisted on default. [4] Ms Chiappin has appealed the tribunal’s decision. Her grounds of appeal are that she believes the payment plan is too high against her income; her daughter’s youth allowance has been taken into account, but her daughter may not continue to reside with her; and she did not attend the hearing due to ill-health and was advised by her ‘then current supports.’ [5] Leave to appeal the decision is required because the decision appealed is a decision in a proceeding for a minor civil dispute.1 [6] Leave to appeal will ordinarily be granted when a question of general importance upon which further argument and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal is to public advantage2; there is a reasonably arguable case that the primary decision-maker made an error3 and there are reasonable prospects that the applicant would be granted orders in its favour;4 or to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by error.5 The appeal process is essentially for correcting errors made by the tribunal which heard the application. Finality in litigation is highly desirable because any further action beyond the hearing can be costly and unnecessarily burdensome on the parties.6 1 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 142, 142(3)(a)(i). 2 Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388, 389; McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577, 578 and 580. 3 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41. 4 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232, [13]. 5 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41. 6 See Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 128 per Gleeson CJ, Kirby and Gummow JJ. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 [7] The grounds for appeal asserted by Ms Chiappin do not refer to any error made by the tribunal. The grounds suggest, in essence, that Ms Chiappin gave instructions to her now former representative to resolve the proceeding on a basis from which she now seeks to resile. [8] I have read the transcript from 9 June. The tribunal made orders by consent, in the terms requested by the parties. [9] There is no error discernable in the tribunal’s decision to make the orders requested by the parties. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused. -- 3 of 3 --