Bibawi v Moreton Bay Housing Service [2026] QCATA 22

[1] The Applicant is the occupier of social housing managed by the Respondent.

[2] On 25 September 2025 the Applicant was issued with a notice to remedy breach ("Notice") referable to alleged anti-social behaviour on 24 September 2025 in breach of s 184(c) of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) ("the Act") which requires that the Applicant not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of a neighbour.

[3] The Applicant commenced Minor Civil Dispute Q15076-25, in an effort to have the Notice set aside. The Applicant asserts that the Notice was a form of retaliatory action being taken against him.

[4] Minor Civil Dispute Q15076-25 was determined by an Adjudicator on 27 October 2025. The Learned Adjudicator determined that the Notice had been validly issued, and was not retaliatory. Having so found, the learned Adjudicator dismissed the application, also noting that the Notice had already expired ("Decision").

[5] The Applicant seeks to appeal the decision of the learned Adjudicator. On 17 November 2025 the Applicant also filed another application, seeking to stay the Decision, pending the outcome of the appeal.

[6] On 18 December 2025 the Appeal Tribunal refused the application to stay the decision ("Refusal"). On 24 December 2025 the Applicant requested written reasons for the Refusal. These now are those reasons.

[7] The general rule is there should be no stay. As was observed by Keane JA (as his honour then was) in Cook's Construction Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Australasia Pty Ltd:

....it will not be appropriate to grant a stay unless a sufficient basis is shown to outweigh the consideration that judgements of the Trial Division should not be treated as merely provisional, and that a successful party in litigation is entitled to the fruits of its judgement. Generally speaking, courts should not be disposed to delay the enforcement of court orders.[1]

[8] An onus rests upon an applicant for a stay to persuade the Court that it is appropriate to grant one. In Clayton v Ebborn [2025] QCA 199 it was observed:

The applicable principles are well established. It is incumbent on the applicant to establish that this is an appropriate case for a stay. The factors which normally weigh upon the exercise of the discretion are:

(a) whether there is an arguable case of the appeal, carrying out a preliminary assessment of the applicants' prospects of success;

(b) whether a refusal of the stay would render the appear right nugatory;

(c) any prejudice to the applicants and competing prejudice to the respondent;

(d) the entitlement of the successful party in litigation to the fruits of its judgment; and

(e) what orders might ultimately be made and whether a stay is required to ensure that those orders are fully effective.[2]

[9] The Appeal Tribunal is not persuaded that it is appropriate to grant a stay. The Applicant has not made any intelligible submission dealing with any of the factors that must be considered as part of an exercise of the discretion to grant a stay. Moreover, in light of the fact that the learned Adjudicator noted that the Notice had already expired, there is no utility in the Appeal Tribunal now granting a stay over an expired notice.

[10] The Application to stay the decision under appeal is refused.

[1] [2008] QCA 322; [2008] 2 Qd R 453, [12].

[2] Clayton v Ebborn [2025] QCA 199, [20].