Sermak v Wilson [2026] QCAT 167

[2] The Tribunal thus directed the parties to file submissions on why the Application should not be struck out as misconceived.[4]

[3] Ms Sermak then sought to rely upon an earlier defective Notice to Leave.[5][6] Unfortunately for Ms Sermak, she cannot. This is because her Application was filed two days after the prescribed period. The time limit creates a strict "window of opportunity" immediately after expiry of a Notice to Leave.[7] Because the time limit is strict,[8] the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to extend it:[9] timeframes for residential notices and starting residential proceedings are prescriptive.[10] The relevant provisions are mandatory - no relaxation is permitted.[11]

[4] It does not matter that Ms Sermak was not legally represented from the outset. Missing a date through inadvertence is not a reasonable excuse.[12] In a Tribunal founded upon self-representation, parties have a duty to act in their own best interests.[13] The rationale is consistent and clear:

In the context of the legislation and demands upon public resources like those which fund QCAT it is not unreasonable to impose, upon a party, an expectation and an obligation that it will ensure it acts in its own best interests, or accept the consequences; and that mistakes like those made here, while attracting sympathy, can no longer prevail over statutory and practical constraints on available resources for dispute resolution.

When these matters are appreciated, it will be seen that a party's own fundamental error in misreading a document cannot be categorised as a 'reasonable excuse' for the purpose of revisiting proceedings which were otherwise correctly and legitimately brought to an end.[14]

[5] It is not incumbent upon the Tribunal to rectify deficiencies in a party's initiating application.[15] The Minor Civil Disputes jurisdiction is busy and demanding. Parties must assume responsibility to take care in preparing material upon which they seek to rely and follow the prescribed procedures and time limits.[16]

[6] Ms Sermak's non-compliance with the legislative requirements is fatal to her Application.[17] It is misconceived.

Should Ms Sermak be granted leave to be legally represented?

[7] Because the striking out of Ms Sermak's application involved complex issues of law[18] (as opposed to her complying with prescribed dates), her Application for leave to be represented is granted.[19] Her application has been determined having considered her legal representative's submissions.[20]

[8] Whether Ms Sermak may file an Application in future is a matter upon which she will need to obtain independent legal advice.

1. The Application for leave to be legally represented is granted.

1. The Application for minor civil dispute - residential tenancy is dismissed as misconceived.

[1] Application for minor civil dispute - residential tenancy dispute dated 23 March 2026

[2] Notice to Leave issued 7 March 2026 to vacate 2 May 2026.

[3] Face 2 Face Foundation Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2013] QCATA 252, [17] - [23]; Bergin v Department of Housing and Public Works [2013] QCATA 190.

[5] Notice to Leave issued 24 March 2026 to vacate 1 April 2026.

[6] The Notice was defective because it was not in the approved form and did not contain prescribed information: Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 326.

[7] Face 2 Face Foundation Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2013] QCATA 252, [19].

[8] Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 293(2); Sendall v Howe [2012] QCATA 41.

[9] Bergin v Department of Housing and Public Works [2013] QCATA 190; Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 61

[10] Lowe v Aspley [2010] QCATA 59, [11]; Sendall v Howe [2012] QCATA 41, [10].

[11] Symes v Kahler [2022] QCATA 35, [11].

[12] Breezeway Developments Pty Ltd v ADG Hydraulics Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 969; Tilecorp Pty Ltd v Pinnacle Seal Pty Ltd [2011] QCAT 52; Laker Paint Company Pty Ltd v Bray [2013] QCATA 90.

[13] Creek v Raine & Horne Mossman [2011] QCATA 226, [13] citing with approval Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175, 217.

[14] Breezeway Developments Pty Ltd v ADG Hydraulics Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 969, [12] - [13].

[15] Rayner & Anor v Trabme Pty Ltd [2013] QCATA 212, [43].

[16] Rayner & Anor v Trabme Pty Ltd [2013] QCATA 212, [46].

[17] Crowther v Jaunitis & Anor [20220] QCATA 137.

[18] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 43(3).

[19] Application for leave to be represented filed 24 March 2026.