Bibawi v Moreton Bay Housing Service [2026] QCA 137

[2026] QCA 137 COURT OF APPEAL MULLINS P BROWN JA BRADLEY JA Appeal No 443 of 2026 QCATA No 469 of 2025 MAGDY BIBAWI Applicant v MORETON BAY HOUSING SERVICE Respondent BRISBANE WEDNESDAY, 22 JULY 2026 JUDGMENT [1] MULLINS P: On 25 September 2025 the State of Queensland as the owner of premises rented to Mr Bibawi (and managed by the respondent) issued a notice to remedy breach under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (Act). The alleged breach was described as “184(c) interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of a neighbour of the tenant.” [2] Mr Bibawi applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) pursuant to s 246A of the Act to set aside the notice. That application was heard by Adjudicator Marshall on 27 October 2025. The adjudicator found that the notice had been properly issued. By the date of that hearing, the notice had expired and there were no further breaches. The adjudicator dismissed Mr Bibawi’s application. -- 1 of 4 -- 2 [3] On 17 November 2025, Mr Bibawi filed an application for leave to appeal the adjudicator’s decision and on the same date also filed an application to stay that decision. On 18 November 2025, QCAT Member McLean-Williams constituting the QCAT Appeal Tribunal conducted a hearing on the papers and gave directions in relation to those applications. It was determined that the application to stay the decision would be determined on the papers, without an oral hearing, after 16 December 2025 and directions were given about the conduct of the application for leave to appeal. A direction was made that: “Unless either party files an application for an oral hearing by 4:00 pm on 17 February 2026 unless otherwise ordered by the Appeal Tribunal, the application for leave to appeal and the appeal (if the application for leave to appeal is granted) will be heard and determined on the papers.” [4] By an application for miscellaneous matters filed on 8 December 2025, Mr Bibawi gave notice that he required an oral hearing and also applied for a closed hearing. [5] The Appeal Tribunal member had a further hearing on the papers on 18 December 2025 in relation to the application for the stay and the application for a closed hearing and an oral hearing on which date the member refused the application to stay the adjudicator’s decision, refused Mr Bibawi’s application for a closed hearing, and allowed the application for an oral hearing of the appeal. [6] By email sent on 24 December 2025, Mr Bibawi sought written reasons for the decision made on 18 December 2025 in relation to the application for the stay. Those reasons were delivered on 19 January 2026 directed at providing the reasons for the refusal of the stay application. The concluding paragraph of the reasons was in the following terms: “The application to stay the decision under appeal is refused.” [7] Unfortunately, the coversheet for that decision had been completed with the following order: “The Application for leave to appeal is refused.” [8] The order inserted on the coversheet accords with neither the substance of the reasons nor the concluding paragraph of the reasons. The coversheet should have referred to the order that had been made by the Appeal Tribunal member on 18 December 2025. Unfortunately, when the Appeal Tribunal’s reasons were delivered on 19 January -- 2 of 4 -- 3 2026, a formal order signed by the member was also issued that reflected the coversheet of the decision. No order should have been issued on 19 January 2026 as the reasons were merely being provided for the order made on 18 December 2025. [9] When the anomalous order came to the Appeal Tribunal’s attention, an amended order was issued on 4 February 2026 that remained dated 19 January 2026 and deleted the order “The Application for leave to appeal is refused” and substituted “The application to stay a decision under appeal is refused.” The amended order is noted as being amended “Due to the administrative error”. The Appeal Tribunal’s decision available on the Supreme Court of Queensland Library webpage has on the coversheet the correct order that was originally made on 18 December 2025: Bibawi v Moreton Bay Housing Service [2026] QCATA 22. [10] Mr Bibawi filed his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on 3 February 2026 which was before the amended decision and accompanying order were re-issued by the Appeal Tribunal. He was seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of his application for leave to appeal on grounds including denial of procedural fairness. There is therefore a threshold issue in this Court on whether the Appeal Tribunal’s steps to correct the error that was patent in the decision and order first issued on 19 January 2026 were effective. [11] Under s 135 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act), the Tribunal may act on its own initiative under s 135(1) of the QCAT Act which provides: “The tribunal may correct a decision made by it in a proceeding if the decision contains – (a) a clerical mistake; or (b) an error arising from an accidental slip or omission; or (c) a material miscalculation of figures or a material mistake in the description of a matter, person or thing mentioned in the decision; or (d) a defect of form.” [12] The reasons were prepared by the Appeal Tribunal member to support the order that was already made on 18 December 2025 and the content of them did not, in any way, deal with Mr Bibawi’s application for leave to appeal against the adjudicator’s decision. The coversheet is not an operative part of the decision. The decision related -- 3 of 4 -- 4 only to the reasons for the refusal of the stay that had been ordered on 18 December 2025. There was no basis whatsoever on which an order could be made on the papers for refusing the leave to appeal, as a result of the publication of the reasons for refusing to stay the decision under the appeal. It was either a clerical mistake or an issue arising from an accidental slip or omission and was therefore capable of correction by the Appeal Tribunal member, as was done on 4 February 2026. Mr Bibawi’s application for leave to appeal to this Court should proceed on the basis that there is no decision of the Appeal Tribunal refusing the application for leave to appeal to that tribunal against the adjudicator’s decision. [13] The amended application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal filed by Mr Bibawi on 5 February 2026 also addresses the decision to refuse to stay the decision under appeal. The jurisdiction of this Court to hear an appeal against a decision of the Appeal Tribunal is confined to those matters that fall within s 150(1) and (2) of the QCAT Act. As there has been no decision of the Appeal Tribunal to refuse the application for leave to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal, s 150(1) does not apply. The decision of the Appeal Tribunal to refuse the stay of the adjudicator’s decision is neither a cost-amount decision nor the final decision in the appeal before the Appeal Tribunal, and therefore s 150(2) of the QCAT Act also does not apply. That means that there is no jurisdiction in this Court to hear Mr Bibawi’s application for leave to appeal against the refusal of the stay. [14] It follows that the amended application for leave to appeal should be struck out. In view of the confusion that has been caused by the error made when the Appeal Tribunal’s decision and order were first issued on 19 January 2026, it is also appropriate to make no order as to costs. [15] The formal orders which should be made are: 1. The amended application for leave to appeal is struck out for want of jurisdiction. 2. No order as to costs. [16] BROWN JA: I agree. [17] BRADLEY JA: I agree. [18] MULLINS P: The orders of the Court are those that I have already pronounced. -- 4 of 4 --