Back to PART 1
the Original Cock-up

PART 2: Anatomy of a QCAT Appeal with Ann Fitzpatrick Senior Member Disregarding Criminal Behaviour by a Property Manager.

Covertly Seeking to Deny ACL Rights to Tenants.

This matter relates to the QCAT Appeal APL305-23 of the QCAT Q1363-23 hearing, and decided on the papers by Senior Member Fitzpatrick (SMF).

SOME FACTS: Please take note ofCRUCIAL EVIDENCE NOT CONSIDERED.

The following documents were before or should have been before the Senior Member Fitzpatrick (SMF):
1.Appeal Application;
2.Applicant's Affidavit of Service;
3.Appeal Directions;
4.Applicant's Initial Submissions Document dated 16 October 2023 DISREGARDED!!!
4.1Evidence of Submissions being sent to Registry for filing. Despite requesting the return of sealed copies, it never happens;
5.Unsigned and Undated Respondent's Appeal Response Document, that doubles down on the "Administrative Error" FRAUD;
6.Applicant's Reply Document dated 20 November 2023 (being redacted);
7.Applicant's Letter to the Registry dated 27 November 2023;
8.Affidavit dated 15 April 2024 (within Form 40 Application providing reasons) to the Registry containing Exhibit "A" DISREGARDED!!!
9.Applicant's Letter to the Registry 16 April 2024 evidencing posting & emailing the Form 40 Application;
10. The Additional Evidence List, as provided for by item 5 of the Directions of the Tribunal;
11. Additional Evidence Files, these files are available upon request; 
12. Reasons for QCAT Q1363-23 Decision;
13. Transcript of Q1363-23 Hearing;
14.The Q1363-23 Statement of Claim.
15.The Q1363-23 Response document.

Some documents have been redacted, in order to comply with a Negotiated Settlement made with the Real Estate Respondent.

ELEVEN COMPLAINTS TO QCAT WITH SUMMARY:
This is an analysis of Appeal APL305-23 of the QCAT Q1363-23 Adjudicator Marshall hearing, because being tenants at the ages of 73 and 75 at the Adjudicator Marshall hearing, they were acutely aware and horrified by the blatant falsehoods that had been presented to the QCAT Tribunal as evidence. As the Office of Fair Trading pointed as per Complaint 10 below, that the dishonesty is potentially criminal, the evidence of the dishonesty by the Respondents, was subsequently confirmed by the Affidavit of Gordon James Craven to the Appeal Tribunal (being item 8 in the above document list).

PART 1 : Fabrication and Lies being provided as Evidence to the QCAT Tribunal by a Real Estate Property Manager causing a Miscarriage of Justice;
AND
PART 2 : On Appeal, QCAT Administration effectively causes the Dishonesty to be Disregarded thus giving it Impunity, which also wrongly seeks to deprive Residential Tenants access to Australian Consumer Law;

QCAT Administration has wrongly jeopardised in many ways, a remaining Cause of Action against the First Respondents.


Complaints

By reason of a threatening letter from the QCAT Principal Registrar, the 11 Complaints are being re-formatted to adopt a layout similar to the Adjudicator Marshall Hearing that will deal with the erroneous material in the following QCAT publication:

Complaint 1

MATERIAL FACTS and FACTS THAT CAN BE SWORN TO:
(a) Prior to the Appeal hearing which was to be conducted by an On Papers Hearing (i.e, not an Oral Hearing), the Applicant applied to the Registry for a list of documents on the APL305-23 file, so as to ensure that all the documents that had been filed were going to be before the Senior Member conducting the hearing which eventually took place some 15 months after being filed. This simple request was refused by the Registry by way of this email, meaning that the Applicant would have to travel from Caloundra to the Brisbane Registry, in order to see what documents were on the file for himself.

QCAT ADMINISTRATION IS REQUESTED TO EXPLAIN:
(b) A truly QCAT example of unhelpful behaviour to a party in appeal proceedings, given that this simple request could have been easily provided. This is just one example of the QCAT Registry procedure that many complain about. In disgust, the virtual all day round trip by train was not undertaken by the Applicant.

(c) Why does the Assistant Director-General & Principal Registrar consider by letter dated 27 January 2025, this statement of facts;
"A truly QCAT example of unhelpful behaviour to a party in appeal proceedings, given that this simple request could have been easily provided";
to be a Contempt of Court by Scandalising the Court?

Complaint 2

MATERIAL FACTS and FACTS THAT CAN BE SWORN TO:
(a) The Senior Member Fitzpatrick (SMF) was provided with evidence by way of:
(i) the Timeline within the Initial Submissions Document (as simplified in the Evidence Brief); and
(ii) the Applicant's Initial Submissions Document is numbered 4 in the above list of documents; and
(iii) the Statement of Claim with substantial evidence (evidence not included because of Negotiated Settlement); and
(iv) the evidence "Exhibit A" within document numbered 8 in the above list of documents;
(v) the implied admission of the PM's dishonesty, by her employer paying a ten figure compensation payment to the Applicant tenants, as per 5(i) of QCAT Q1363-23;
hereinafter referred to as Crucial Evidence, could readily convince a fair-minded observer to conclude that dishonest Fabricated Evidence and Lies were in fact provided as evidence to the Q1363-23 hearing by the Property Manager (PM), who represented the Respondents.

(b) The provisions subsection 48(1)(e) of the QCAT Act: "attempting to deceive another party or the tribunal"; and section 216 "False or misleading information", is legislation specifically created to deal with dishonest behaviour as described at (a).

(c) Senior Member Fitzpatrick (SMF) did not deal with that evidence at (a), under the legislation provided for doing so at (b).

(d) By reason of (a) to (c), it is believed that SMF on behalf of QCAT Administration, has given Impunity to the Dishonesty.

QCAT ADMINISTRATION IS REQUESTED TO EXPLAIN:
(e) As to why did the SMF did not deal with the behaviour described as dishonest, by way of the specific legislation at (b)?

(f) What evidence did the SMF have, to conclude that the specific legislation was not an appropriate remedy?

Complaint 3

MATERIAL FACTS and FACTS THAT CAN BE SWORN TO:
(a) SMF did not consider the Crucial Evidence of dishonesty that is referred to at Complaint 2(a).

(b) Intense scrutiny and a word search of the SMF's Reasons For Decision (RFD) document has been conducted, which reveal none of the keywords associated with the dishonesty or potential criminality that has occurred, can be found.

(c) There is substantial evidence of dishonesty and potential criminality within the Crucial Evidence, regarding a Property Manager's behaviour on behalf of the Respondents.

(d) It is believed that the Crucial Evidence, had the potential to be used to set an example to those in the real estate rental industry that would treat tenants (in the current rental crisis), with disrespect, dishonesty, gouging and greed, together with disrespecting the Tribunal by fabricating evidence and lying to the Tribunal.

(e) It is believed that the QCAT Tribunal has an obligation to Queensland taxpayers and the general public to expose the behaviour set out at (d), and that an ordinary reasonable person (and in particular a residential tenant), in the position of the SMF would have taken the opportunity to set that example.

(f) The evidence that was not considered, was absolutely Crucial Evidence that the Applicant tenants' had provided to the Appeal.

(g) By reason of Complaint 2(a)(iv). Crucial Evidence had been provided to the QCAT Registry twice, with the second lodgement being sworn to by Affidavit.

(h) As the Crucial Evidence had been disregarded, the SMF was able to ignore the actual reasons for the Applicant tenants not signing the lease renewal. 

(i) As the Crucial Evidence had been disregarded, at paragraph 17 of the RFD, the SMF was able to incorrectly find that: "The Adjudicator also found no bad faith on the part of the respondents".

(j) As the Crucial Evidence had been disregarded, the SMF was able to ignore the actual reasons for the Applicant tenants not signing the lease renewal. 

(k) By reason of (a) to (j), the decisions within the RFD document has been arrived at, without the Crucial Evidence being considered.

(L) By reason of (a) to (k), it is believed that SMF on behalf of QCAT Administration, has wrongly given Impunity to the Dishonesty of the PM on behalf of the Respondents.

QCAT ADMINISTRATION IS REQUESTED TO EXPLAIN:
(m) Why wasn't any of the Crucial Evidence considered, when the Initial Submissions Document, had been in fact provided to the QCAT Registry twice?

(n) As the Crucial Evidence had been disregarded:
    • how was subsection 31(1) Human Rights Act (QLD) obeyed, in coming to the decisions in the RFD?
    • How was Common Law Procedural Fairness obeyed, in coming to the decisions in the RFD?

(o) Why does the Assistant Director-General & Principal QCAT Registrar, by letter dated 27 January 2025, believe the writer to be in Contempt of the Tribunal by Scandalising the Tribunal by publishing a narrative regarding facts (a) to (L), when those facts appear to expose that the Tribunal has scandalised itself, by disregarding the Crucial Evidence?

(p) And it must be asked, is QCAT Administration in some sort of relationship with Property Managers to protect their interests, while providing injustice to tenants? 

Complaint 4

MATERIAL FACTS and FACTS THAT CAN BE SWORN TO:
(a) As per Complaints 2 and 3, the SMF did not consider Crucial Evidence.

(b) In producing the RFD, the SMF has made reference to the purported "Administrative Error" a number of times as being a fact.

(c) There can be no mistake that the Crucial Evidence, shows the purported "Administrative Error" to be a fabrication.

(d) It is reasonably believed that the Crucial Evidence remains filed in the QCAT Registry.

QCAT ADMINISTRATION IS REQUESTED TO EXPLAIN:
(e) Given the reasonable belief that the Crucial Evidence remains filed in the QCAT Registry, and the numerous times that QCAT computers have viewed the QCAT Review website pages (which includes this one), and the concerns raised by the Assistant Director-General & Principal Registrar's letter dated 27 January 2025 (the second of two letters):
    • has QCAT Administration bothered to find the Crucial Evidence in its Registry, and confirm its existence?
    • if so, why doesn't QCAT Administration clarify the "Administrative Error" issue?

(f) As the Crucial Evidence had been disregarded:
    • how was subsection 31(1) Human Rights Act (QLD) obeyed, in coming to the decisions in the RFD?
    • How was Common Law Procedural Fairness obeyed, in coming to the decisions in the RFD?

(g) Why does the Assistant Director-General & Principal QCAT Registrar, by letter dated 27 January 2025, believe the writer to be in Contempt of the Tribunal by Scandalising the Tribunal by publishing a narrative regarding facts (a) to (c), when those facts appear to expose that the Tribunal has scandalised itself, by failing to consider Crucial Evidence?

Complaint 5

MATERIAL FACTS and FACTS THAT CAN BE SWORN TO:
(a) As per complaint 5(b) within the QCAT Q1363-23 hearing, the Adjudicator had relied upon the PM's fabrication and lies.

(b) The SMF has followed the Adjudicator's mistake of believing the Administrative Error to be factual, by disregarding the Crucial Evidence.

(c) Rather than addressing the Applicant tenants' legitimate reasons for declining to renew the lease contained within the Crucial Evidence as summarised by the Evidence Brief, the SMF has chosen to believe a deliberate pack of lies that intentionally obscured the essential true facts.

(d) The facts at (a) to (c), have caused an intentional miscarriage of justice, by the PM for the Respondents, which the SMF has failed to rectify by way of an Appeal.

QCAT ADMINISTRATION IS REQUESTED TO EXPLAIN:
(e) Having established that there has been a miscarriage of justice because of (d) and Crucial Evidence being disregarded, why does QCAT Administration not deal with the matter according to the QCAT legislation referred to at Complaint 2(b) above?

(f) Having established that there has been a miscarriage of justice because of (d) and Crucial Evidence being disregarded, why does QCAT Administration not deal with the matter under its "CHAPTER 5 - GENERAL, PART 1 - OFFENCES AND CONTEMPT" of the QCAT Act?

(g) Having established that there has been a miscarriage of justice because of (d) and Crucial Evidence being disregarded, why does QCAT Administration not request Queensland Police to investigate the matter, given the Office of Fair Trading's Response to the matter:
"Allegations of giving false testimony during a judicial process are of a serious criminal nature and the OFT is not authorised to investigate these types complaints, but the Queensland Police Service (QPS) may be able to consider your complaint under the relevant section of the criminal code. If QPS investigations result in a prosecution against a person that is the holder of a real estate agent or real estate salesperson registration certificate, the OFT will then be able to consider the person's suitability to remain licensed or registered".
This Response is Exhibit "C" within the Affidavit included with the Form 40 Application, listed as document number 8 in the above list of documents that were intended to be before the SMF at the Appeal hearing.

(h) Why does the Assistant Director-General & Principal QCAT Registrar, by letter dated 27 January 2025, believe the writer to be in Contempt of the Tribunal by Scandalising the Tribunal by publishing a narrative regarding facts (a) to (d), when those facts appear to expose that the Tribunal has scandalised itself, by failing to consider Crucial Evidence?

Complaint 6

MATERIAL FACTS and FACTS THAT CAN BE SWORN TO:
(a) At paragraph [74] of the RFD, the SMF states:
    (i) "As to the other relief sought, I consider it to be misconceived on the basis of a lack of jurisdiction with respect to the ACL";
and at [55] the SMF expresses a similar opinion; and

    (ii) "...further there is no need for any findings in this application for leave to appeal or appeal that Ms Black gave false or misleading evidence or that she is in contempt of the Tribunal".

AS TO 6(a)(i): 
(b) The SMF cites sections 15 and 16 of the Fair Trading Act (Qld) in the list of citations, but for some obscure reason omits sections 20 & 50.

(c) It is believed that, QCAT jurisdiction regarding Australian Consumer Law (ACL), is created by sections 20 and 50 of the Fair Trading Act (QLD) and it is a fact that it has been relied upon in:
    (i) Helyar v Civil and Property Development Consulting Pty Ltd (in liquidation) & Ors [2020] QCAT 465, where at [1] the following can be found:
"This Application for minor civil dispute – consumer dispute is justiciable in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) both as a consumer claim and for a debt or liquidated demand of money. Issues of unconscionable dealing, misleading and deceptive conduct, and negligence arise for adjudication on the evidence".
    (ii) And the Appeal Tribunal at: Mathew v Millington [2016] QCATA 202 at [46].

(d) Furthermore it is believed that, section 12 of the QCAT Act provides the Tribunal with jurisdiction for Minor Civil Disputes which include Consumer Disputes and Tenancy Disputes. Consequently, as the ACL provisions have to be used to decide Consumer Disputes, it is believed that it follows, that ACL provisions are also available for Tenancy Disputes.

(e) The QCAT Tribunal is a Court of Record pursuant to section 164 of the QCAT Act.

(f) It is believed that section 164 appears to mean, that any error in a decision becomes law, and if the erroneous matter is not appealed and corrected, the error stays and the law becomes confusing and erroneous.

(g) The ACL is believed to be available in VCAT.

(h) It is believed that there are many potential grounds of appeal in the RDF of the SMF, however the writer decided not to venture into the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal being a division of the Supreme Court for various reasons, one of which would most likely be a Security for Costs Order.

(i) It is believed that legal accuracy in case law is essential, to ensure that future judgments do not mislead others.

AS TO 6(a)(i):
(j) Subsection 216(1) of the QCAT Act provides: 
"A person must not state to an official anything the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular".
As such, it is believed that the legislation is mandatory, irrespective of whether the behaviour was relied upon, or not relied upon.

QCAT ADMINISTRATION IS REQUESTED TO EXPLAIN:
(k) Why has the SMF chosen to omit sections 20 and 50 of the Fair Trading Act (QLD) from her citations in the RFD?

(L) The SMF, has substantial experience and knowledge of the law by being a Barrister. So why has SMF chosen to seek to deny residential tenants in Queensland access to the ACL?

(m) Being a Barrister and Senior Member of QCAT that must have the knowledge of (e) & (f), why does the SMF seek to change established law regarding QCAT's ACL jurisdiction?

(n) Why does the SMF represent and archive into law, that the ACL legal protections available to residential tenants are not available, when they are available?

(o) Why is the SMF's RFD, totally OPPOSITE to Member Alan Walsh's Decision in Helyar? AND the Appeal Tribunal in Mathew?

(p) Why does the SMF seek to protect Ms. Black from prosecution, when Ms. Black has clearly been dishonest, misled the Tribunal, wrongly influenced a Tribunal Decision and caused the Applicant tenants to suffer substantial grief and aggravation?  

(q) Why does the Assistant Director-General & Principal QCAT Registrar, by letter dated 27 January 2025, believe the writer to be in Contempt of the Tribunal by Scandalising the Tribunal by publishing a narrative regarding facts (a) to (k), when those facts appear to expose that the Tribunal has scandalised itself, by failing to consider Crucial Evidence?

(r) Could (L) to (p) be described as 'Stitching-up' the Applicant, to save the reputation of the Adjudicator and the Tribunal?

Complaint 7

MATERIAL FACTS and FACTS THAT CAN BE SWORN TO:
(a) At paragraph [74] of the RFD, the SMF states:
"Ms Black’s evidence was not fundamental to the Adjudicator’s finding that the Form 12 was not issued in retaliation".

(b) The Adjudicator clearly did rely upon the PM's fabrication and lies as per paragraph 5(b) of QCAT Q1363-23. The lines 10 to 12 of page 25 of the Transcript show that Ms Black's (the agent) evidence, was fundamental to the Adjudicator's finding:
"The agent has given evidence in relation to the solar being put into the owners’ name as an administrative error. The owners were planning to give the solar rebates to the tenants".

QCAT ADMINISTRATION IS REQUESTED TO EXPLAIN:
(c) Why does the SMF find that Ms. Black's dishonest evidence was not fundamental to the Adjudicator’s finding, when clearly it was fundamental?

(d) Why does the Assistant Director-General & Principal QCAT Registrar, by letter dated 27 January 2025, believe the writer to be in Contempt of the Tribunal by Scandalising the Tribunal by publishing a narrative regarding facts (a) & (b), when those facts appear to expose that the Tribunal has scandalised itself, by failing to consider Crucial Evidence and it seems, distorting the truth?

(e) Could what appears to be a deliberate untruth, be described as part of 'Stitching-up' the Applicant, to save the reputation of the Adjudicator and the Tribunal?

Complaint 8

MATERIAL FACTS and FACTS THAT CAN BE SWORN TO:
(a) The RFD provides a jumbled up confusing characterisation of events that fail to identify the actual issues, and chooses to criticise the Appellant for not having "characterised the grounds of appeal as an error of law, of fact or mixed fact and law".

However at paragraph 58 of the RFD the SMF states:
"Ground 4 is that the issue of administrative error was not raised until the hearing and that the applicants were caught by surprise and prejudiced in the presentation of their case".

(b) The Applicants tenants were taken by complete surprise as has been set out at Complaint 1 and Complaint 5 at QCAT Q1363-23, and as per the Timeline as simplified by the evidence brief, the administrative error was not raised until the QCAT Q1363-23 hearing.

(c) QCAT's established case law on "Surprise" at paragraphs [13] to [16] of Lyons v Building Services Authority & Anor [2011] QCATA 240, and also referred to at [11] in Pacific Harbour Residential Community Association Inc v Sharkey [2018] QCATA 152, emphasises the importance of adhering to strict procedures to ensure transparency and fairness in order to eliminate being taken by surprise.

(d)  While being aware of the claims that the "administrative error was not raised until the hearing" and that "the applicants were caught by surprise", the SMF disregarded Crucial Evidence that showed the administrative error to be a fabrication, and also showed that the applicants were caught by surprise. which would have enabled the case law at (c) to be implemented.

(e) Having disregarded the Crucial Evidence, the SMF had the option to refer back to the original pleadings in the Statement of Claim and compare that to the unsigned and undated Response of the PM. This would have revealed to any ordinary reasonable person that understood pleadings, that there had been zero response to the pleadings in the Statement of Claim, which then reveals that the QCAT Q1363-23 hearing should never have been dismissed. However the SMF has chosen to follow the error of the Adjudicator, in disregarding a totally inadequate Response to the Statement of Claim.

(f) This is how pleadings work!

(g) The Timeline as simplified in the Evidence Brief, shows the "administrative error" to be an intentional fabrication, thus adding mens rea to establishing Criminal Intent, which also illustrates how stupid and reckless a Property Manager can be, all while it appears to be of no concern to QCAT Administration and the SMF.

QCAT ADMINISTRATION IS REQUESTED TO EXPLAIN:
(h) Given the facts at (a) to (g) regarding new evidence of "administrative error" submitted at the QCAT Q1363-23 hearing, and the Applicant tenants being taken by "surprise", how did the SMF manage to disregard Crucial Evidence filed in the Registry twice?

(i) As the Crucial Evidence had been disregarded:
    • how was subsection 31(1) Human Rights Act (QLD) obeyed, in coming to the decisions in the RFD?
    • How was Common Law Procedural Fairness provided, in coming to the decisions in the RFD?

(j) Why didn't the SMF refer back to the original Statement of Claim and its Response, which would reveal to any ordinary reasonable person that understood pleadings, that the Response was 100% useless to the Respondents, because it did not refer to ANY of the alleged facts in the Statement of Claim?

(k) Why does the Assistant Director-General & Principal QCAT Registrar, by letter dated 27 January 2025, believe the writer to be in Contempt of the Tribunal by Scandalising the Tribunal by publishing a narrative regarding facts (a) to (g), when those facts appear to expose that the Tribunal has scandalised itself, by failing to consider Crucial Evidence filed in the Registry twice?

(L) Having perhaps realised by now, that Crucial Evidence has been disregarded and the element of mens rae is present, why doesn't the Principle Registrar and QCAT Administration do something about such a SERIOUS MATTER, instead of threatening the complainant as per (k)?

Complaint 9

MATERIAL FACTS and FACTS THAT CAN BE SWORN TO:
(a) The Applicant tenants were caught off guard by the unexpected introduction of the fabricated "Administrative Error", and could not effectively protect their rights as they had no prior warning or opportunity to respond to the PM's lies, that were clearly intended to, and did, allegedly pervert the course of justice.

(b) At paragraph [59] of the RFD, the SMF appears to imply in a vague sort of way, that the tenants did not respond properly to the PM's alleged lies. This is contradicted by the Transcript, which indicates that the tenants voiced strong objections that were disregarded by Adjudicator Marshall, and now have been disregarded by the SMF.

(c) It appears to the writer, that it is quite bizarre, that in her vagueness, the SMF is perhaps seeking to blame the tenants, for not yelling loud enough.

(d) At paragraph [63](d) of the RFD, the SMF claims that the Adjudicator's role is not to cross-examine the PM.

(e) It is believed that all QCAT Adjudicators and Members are required to abide by sections 28(1)(e) and 29 of the QCAT Act, which mandates thorough disclosure of all relevant material to ensure a fair hearing, and that proper procedure must be followed.

QCAT ADMINISTRATION IS REQUESTED TO EXPLAIN:
(f) Why did the SMF claim that the Adjudicator's role is not to cross-examine the PM, in the circumstances of the legislation cited at (e)?

(g) How did the SMF consider that it was not the Adjudicator's role to cross-examine the PM because it was the Applicant tenants' role, in the circumstance of the surprises they were labouring under, because of proper procedure not being followed, as per above and at the QCAT Q1363-23 hearing?

(h) Why does the SMF believe that the Applicant tenants' objections, were not sufficient to raise the concern of the Adjudicator?

(i) What in fact, did the Applicant tenants do that was wrong, considering that they are not trial lawyers?

(j) Why does the Assistant Director-General & Principal QCAT Registrar, by letter dated 27 January 2025, believe the writer to be in Contempt of the Tribunal by Scandalising the Tribunal by publishing a narrative regarding facts (a) to (e), when those facts appear to expose that the Tribunal has scandalised itself?

Complaint 10

MATERIAL FACTS and FACTS THAT CAN BE SWORN TO:
(a) At paragraph [76] of the RFD, the SMF states:
"The issues in this matter are particular to the applicants. There is no question of public importance on which further argument and a decision of the appeal tribunal would be to the public advantage".

(b) By following the Adjudicator's mistake of believing the Administrative Error to be factual, the SMF would be quite correct in saying that there is no public Interest (allegedly disguised by the SMF to be "public importance") in this matter.

(c) However, in reality this matter is all about a Dishonest Fraud on the QCAT Tribunal and the Applicant tenants based on the above Complaints and the Complains at QCAT Q1363-23.

(d) On complaint to the Office of Fair Trading and providing the Evidence Brief, the OFT stated the following in Response:
"Allegations of giving false testimony during a judicial process are of a serious criminal nature and the OFT is not authorised to investigate these types complaints, but the Queensland Police Service (QPS) may be able to consider your complaint under the relevant section of the criminal code. If QPS investigations result in a prosecution against a person that is the holder of a real estate agent or real estate salesperson registration certificate, the OFT will then be able to consider the person's suitability to remain licensed or registered".
This OFT Response is Exhibit "C" within the Affidavit included with the Form 40 Application, at document 8 in the above list of documents that were before, or should have been before, the SMF.

(e) Furthermore, the writer has the absolute belief that Queensland residential tenants, who rent in more than 600,000 households in Queensland (source Queensland Government), would vehemently disagree to the notion that Property Managers lying to the QCAT Tribunal is not in the public interest, and that it would totally fail to meet the community expectations of residential tenants in Queensland.

(f) It is also believed that lawyers in their roles of being a Public Official as per a QCAT Member such as the SMF, have an over-arching obligation to act in the public interest. They must perform their official functions and duties, and exercise any discretionary powers, in a way that promote the public interest that is applicable to their official functions.

QCAT ADMINISTRATION IS REQUESTED TO EXPLAIN:
(g) Given the facts at (c) to (f) and all the other Complaints in this matter, why does the SMF believe that there is no "public importance" (as in public interest), regarding the Dishonest Fraud of the QCAT Tribunal and the Applicant tenants?

(h) Given all the Complaints herein, and all the Complaints at QCAT Q1363-23, is the behaviour of the SMF nothing other than a Cover-up of the Adjudicator's Cock-up, and the ineptitude of QCAT?

Complaint 11

MATERIAL FACTS and FACTS THAT CAN BE SWORN TO:
(a) As per paragraph (77) and Order 1 of the RFD, the SMF dismissed the Appeal. 

(b) There was no adjudication of the ACL components of the ACL matters in the Appeal.

QCAT ADMINISTRATION IS REQUESTED TO EXPLAIN:
(c) Given the above Complaint number 6, why did the SMF not adjudicate the ACL matters?

(d) Given the above Complaint number 6, and that the QCAT Tribunal is a Court of Record, does the QCAT Administration consider the RFD to now be the law, regarding QCAT jurisdiction of the ACL?

Interim Summary

A QCAT APPEAL THAT TURNS A BLIND EYE TO DISHONESTY & FRAUD WHILE DEPRIVING TENANTS ACCESS TO THE ACL

Despite an initial set of complaints and threats from the QCAT Principal Registrar, QCAT Administration appears to have Gone Dark on this matter without answering any of the numerous questions per above, or at QCAT Q1363-23.

In a genuine effort to make this Summary as polite as possible, because believe me there are stronger words available, it appears that QCAT has ditched its moral compass regarding the events herein.

The SMF's actions reveal a troubling disregard for crucial evidence, as the SMF Barrister focused on the unsigned status of the tenancy lease renewal, while totally ignoring the underlying issues of onerous and predatory lease conditions, that justified the Applicant tenants' refusal to renew the tenancy lease. The dishonesty and fraud, was by way of Fabrication and Lies to the QCAT Tribunal QCAT Q1363-23 hearing and the Applicant tenants, five months after the fact, so as to cover up the onerous and predatory lease conditions that appeared to be their normal way of conducting business, and treating tenants as trash.

There can be no mistake as to the then existence of the onerous and predatory lease conditions, because the real estate employer of the Property Manager (PM) responsible, compensated the Applicant tenants with a five figure amount subsequent to their own lengthy period of Going Dark. Their reason for coming clean which they admitted, was to remove website publications exposing their dishonesty and fraud, which the QCAT Appeal Tribunal has since wrongly refused to deal with by ignoring Crucial Evidence, and now also Going Dark.

Further evidence justifying the Applicant tenants' refusal to renew the tenancy lease, is contained within:
the applicant's appeal submissions containing the Timeline evidence (matching the evidence brief) subsequently confirmed by affidavit within a Form 40 Application (document 8 in the list of documents above); and
the tenants' Statement of Claim;
and the writer cannot find that the SMF has referred to that evidence, in any shape or form throughout the 12 pages of RFD.

So the Applicant tenants were not only initially treated as garbage by the PM, they have also been treated as garbage by QCAT, which can now be referred to, as the place that provides injustice.

Perhaps the most concerning matter is that the SMF, via her RFD, has ignored established Case Law regarding the ACL, and archived into Case Law, that QCAT does not have jurisdiction in ACL. 

For the reasons given at Complaint 6 above, this opinion must be manifestly wrong, and its effect is to deny residential tenants in Queensland the best and most powerful legislative protection, that they are entitled to under Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

As such, the allegations of Unconscionable Conduct under the ACL, being a major component in the initial Application, and then the Appeal Application, have resulted in the ACL matters not being adjudicated in the Appeal forum.

Having taken a serious interest in the QCAT.Review websites, QCAT Administration must know very well that their behaviour is unacceptable and potentially an Abuse of Power that discriminates against Residential Tenants. However they do nothing to rectify it other than accusing the complainant of Scandalising the Tribunal. They are right about the Tribunal being scandalised, however the scandal is all in their own making.

Instead of this matter being taken to the Supreme Court of Appeal it is now in the Court of Public Opinion, which I have found to be far more successful in the past, and also recently, by way of the above said five figure payout from the PM and her real estate employer to compensate the tenants for fraudulent behaviour. Whether the Registry has mislaid or lost the two copies of Submissions, along with an Affidavit and Evidence that were filed, or the SMF has chosen to ignore them, is unknown, basically because the Registry has chosen to be decidedly unhelpful, and to Go Dark.

QCAT has a history of being underfunded: IT investment to upgrade its paper-based registry to digital. However, this does not excuse the behaviour set out above, and the apparent refusal to explain or do anything about it. 

Human Rights Act (QLD)

QCAT's Human Right Division has jurisdiction to hear matters relevant to the Human Rights Act (QLD). Section 31 of that Act, mandates for a Fair Hearing in Civil Procedures:
Section 31(1) "A person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing".

By reason of QCAT's administration of Civil Procedures in the Hearings and Appeals and other administrative matters, there are 6 complaints about the Adjudicator Marshall hearing, and the 11 complaints about the Senior Member Fitzpatrick Appeal hearing (as is set out above). By failing to ensure that the human rights of the Applicant tenants were protected within those hearing procedures, QCAT administration appears to have attracted upon itself, the provisions of subsection 58(1) of the Act.

Furthermore, the Common Law duty of Procedural Fairness is clearly missing from many these complaints.

If QCAT Administration would respond the Complaints, perhaps the behaviour could be justified. However the administration refuses to respond and instead sends out its usual scripted response.

QCAT Administration likes to provide the following scripted response to a complaint:
"As a tribunal, QCAT is required to act independently and is not subject to direction or control by any person or entity. In line with this, the conduct of any matter before QCAT is entirely a matter for the presiding Tribunal Member or Adjudicator, including what evidence is considered and relied upon to make their decision and how those proceedings will be heard, whether in person or on the papers".

The presiding Members and Adjudicators are NOT A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES, which is what QCAT Administration appears to be saying in its scripted response, which the writer further complains that the scripted response is misleading.

Quite clearly the procedures in the two matters complained about (QCAT Appeal APL305-23 and QCAT Q1363-23), can be described as scandalous, by not abided by the requirements of subsection 31(1) of the Human Rights Act or the Common Law duty of Procedural Fairness, when it is the responsibility of QCAT Administration to ensure that hearings are conducted according to those requirements.

It is a fact, that Adjudicators, Members and Senior Members are not at liberty to choose to not abide by these requirements, despite the scripted response that appears to falsely imply that they can, and when in reality they all have a Duty of Care to exercise a reasonable standard of care in their judicial decisions.

The administrative matters of QCAT (e.g, "giving directions about the practices and procedures of the Tribunal"), made by the QCAT President are set out HERE. The QCAT Administration, has not only failed the Applicant tenants TWICE, it appears to fail at other times, by the vast number of complaints that are made about QCAT.

It is somewhat ironic, that QCAT appears to have contravened the very Act, that it is responsible for enforcing. However notwithstanding the irony, a complaint to the Human Rights Commission about QCAT Administration disregarding subsection 31(1) of the Act, is being considered, if there is no reasonable response from QCAT Administration. It is not only in this publication that complains of turning a blind eye to subsection 31(1), there are many others that complain about having their evidence ignored together with matters of fabricated evidence by Property Managers, which if true causes Procedural Unfairness which can lead to Injustice.

QCAT Administration will no doubt disagree with the above and try to deflect the criticism, however whether the above is right or wrong, the position is: SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE

RESULT

Facts within these complaints to the QCAT Administration, have caused the tenants to believe that they have had their Human Rights breached and suffer substantial added grief and aggravation to that already suffered by the Marshall Decision, which in all could also be described as Elder Abuse. The shock of the Appeal being dismissed, would normally have been unbelievable to the Applicant. However the Applicant has in fact experienced first hand the disgraceful fiasco of injustice set out herein, and the grief and aggravation experienced, is extended up until today 10 March 2025.

Furthermore, the Applicant tenant has a current Cause of Action against the First Respondents Saurav Kataria and Ashleigh Kataria. The behaviour of QCAT Administration complained about herein, and at QCAT Q1363-23, has wrongly caused that Cause of Action to be jeopardised in many ways.

A THREAT has been made from the Assistant Director-General and Principle Registrar as follows:
"If the websites and content are not removed, this matter will be referred to Crown Law for advice on the commencement of appropriate contempt proceedings by the Department of Justice";
where I have been accused of; "Scandalising the Tribunal".

The THREAT is analogues to a disgraceful SLAPP Suite. More about a SLAPP from the Human Rights Law Centre, O’Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors and Caxton Legal.

It is noted that in many jurisdictions including the UK, "Scandalising the Judiciary" was abolished in 2013, as a form of contempt of court under the common law of England and Wales, in recognition of it being an ancient relic of the past.

Having received no direct response to the 17 Complaints, it would appear that QCAT Administration would rather shoot the complainant, instead of answering the Complaints, and removing the discretion of Members and Adjudicators to not apply correct procedures, as is set out above and at QCAT Q1363-23.

FINALLY: Duty of Care

A judge's "Duty of Care" (i.e, in this case the SMF, the Adjudicator and indeed the QCAT Administration under the control of the QCAT President (a Supreme Court Judge)), refers to their legal obligation to exercise a reasonable standard of care in their judicial decisions, meaning they must act with fairness, impartiality, and thoroughness when considering cases, avoiding any actions that could foreseeably harm the parties involved, and upholding the integrity of the legal system; essentially, they must make decisions based on the law and evidence presented, not personal bias or prejudice... SEE MORE

A lack of Duty of Care to the Applicant tenants in this QCAT fiasco resulted in... An absolute Cock-up and the ensuing Cover-up.

As at 10 March 2025, other than issuing threats, and a Substantial Amount of Visits (in no particular order) via its NETSKOPE provider to the QCAT.Review websites, QCAT Administration fails to respond.

SIGNED
Gordon James Craven - Applicant/Appellant/Complainant

FEEDBACK WELCOME
Send Gordon James Craven (tenant) your comments