Zhang v Nichols & Anor [2026] QCATA 48

(a) there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision;[2]

(b) there is a reasonable prospect that the appellant will obtain substantive relief;[3] and

(c) leave is needed to correct a substantial injustice caused by the error;[4] or

(d) there is a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage.[5]

[3] By an application filed 25 July 2025 and a further application filed on 3 September 2025 the respondents requested the Appeal Tribunal to summarily dismiss the application for leave to appeal or appeal.

[4] Courts and Tribunals have long had the power to summarily dispose of proceedings at an early stage to avoid putting the other party - and the Court or Tribunal - to the unnecessary expense and commitment of resources associated with a full hearing, and to avoid consequential delays to final resolution, where an application for relief has no prospect of success.

[5] In this Tribunal, the summary dismissal power is relevantly found in section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (the QCAT Act), which permits the striking out of a proceeding if the Tribunal considers that the proceeding is:

(a) frivolous, vexatious or misconceived; or

(b) lacking in substance; or

(c) an abuse of process.

[6] For reasons that are not clear, rather than determining the strike out applications when filed, the Appeal Tribunal directed that both applications for strike out be decided at the final hearing of the application for leave to appeal or appeal.

The application for miscellaneous matters (strike out) filed by the respondents on 25 July 2025

[7] On 19 June 2025 the Appeal Tribunal relevantly directed the respondents to file their submissions in response to the application for leave to appeal or appeal by 31 July 2025.

[8] Although the respondents were noted as having failed to comply with that direction, it is clear on the face of the application for miscellaneous matters (strike out) filed by the respondents on 25 July 2025, and having regard to the date it was filed, that the application does not seek summary dismissal, but, rather, responds to the application for leave to appeal or appeal and was filed in compliance with the direction made on 19 June 2025.

[9] For those reasons, the application is therefore refused as an application to strike out but accepted as the respondents' submissions in response to the application for leave to appeal or appeal.

The application for miscellaneous matters (strike out) filed by the respondents on 3 September 2025

[10] The application for miscellaneous matters (strike out) filed by the respondents on 3 September 2025 raises similar arguments to those raised in the application filed 25 July 2025 but also notes non-compliance by Mr Zhang with Tribunal directions.

[11] Section 48 of the QCAT Act permits a summary dismissal where, for example, a party causes disadvantage in a proceeding by failing to comply with Tribunal directions.

[12] However, once the matter has progressed to a final hearing and the non-compliance complained of has, necessarily, been remedied, there is no utility in giving the application to strike out any further consideration. The purpose of bringing an early end to proceedings by applying for summary dismissal is defeated if consideration of the application is deferred to the final hearing in these circumstances. It is dismissed on that basis.

Does Mr Zhang have standing to file the application?

[13] Section 142(1) of the QCAT Act limits appeal rights to a "party to a proceeding".

[14] Mr Zhang faces an immediate difficulty in bringing the application for leave to appeal or appeal because section 39 of the QCAT Act provides that a person is a party to a proceeding in the Tribunal's original jurisdiction if the person is:

(a) the applicant; or

(b) a person in relation to whom a decision of the Tribunal is sought by the applicant; or

(c) intervening in the proceeding under section 41; or

(d) joined as a party to the proceeding under section 42; or

(e) someone else an enabling Act states is a party to the proceeding.

[15] Mr Zhang, in his individual capacity, is none of these things.

[16] The application in the Tribunal below was brought by 'Ray White Sunnybank Hills' and the counter-application was brought against that same party. The decision named 'Ray White Sunnybank Hills' as a party, which is the registered business name under which Jyu One Investment Pty Ltd trades.

[17] It is not clear what Mr Zhang's role in Jyu One Investment Pty Ltd is. Fortunately, nothing turns on this.

[18] At no stage in these appeal proceedings did Mr Zhang apply to substitute the applicant with the correct entity and - somewhat unusually - the Appeal Tribunal did not initiate the correction during pre-hearing case management, although nothing compels it to do so.

[19] Mr Zhang does not have standing to bring the application for leave to appeal or appeal and it ought to be dismissed on that basis unless the applicant entity is now corrected on Appeal Tribunal initiative.

Should the applicant be corrected on Appeal Tribunal initiative?

[20] In The Pot Man Pty Ltd v Reaoch [2011] QCATA 318 at [9], the Appeal Tribunal observed that:

The QCAT statutory regime itself places obligations upon parties to take care in their dealings with Tribunal matters and to act in their own best interests.

[21] This was cited with approval by Judicial Member McGill in Mills v Ethell [2024] QCATA 67 at [19].

[22] Expanding on this point, the Tribunal in Csorba v Petka Investments Pty Ltd,[6] stated that although it has a duty to assist parties, "this assistance must be limited as to resources and time - it is not for the tribunal to conduct or to perfect the applicant's case. It can only guide the parties as to what is required...".[7]

[23] An application for leave to appeal or appeal is brought on a Form 39. The form directs applicants to "Refer to the attached instructions before filing". The "attached instructions" to a Form 39 for "Part A Applicant's and Respondent's Details" specify that the parties to an appeal will be "the parties who were named in the original proceedings".

[24] In short, Mr Zhang was careless in bringing the application for leave to appeal or appeal in the name of an incorrect entity despite being instructed on how to bring the application correctly. It is not for the Appeal Tribunal to now act on its own initiative to conduct or perfect his case, particularly not at the 'decision' stage of the proceedings.

[25] It follows that the applicant entity will not be corrected on Appeal Tribunal initiative at this late stage of proceedings and the application for leave to appeal or appeal is dismissed because Mr Zhang lacked standing to bring it.

[26] For completeness, the merit of the application can be addressed with relative brevity.

[27] Mr Zhang argues that the adjudicator at first instance overlooked a claim by Ray White Sunnybank Hills for rent outstanding at the end of the tenancy.

[28] To be very clear, no such claim was made in the Application for residential tenancy dispute filed 1 April 2025:

[29] Nor was an argument to that effect put in any filed material or submissions.

[30] Although a rental ledger for the tenancy was filed on 1 April 2025, filed documents referred to it as evidence of an advertising cost having been incurred and do not reference a claim for rent arrears.

[31] The only attempt by the lessor's agent to claim rent arrears was made in oral submissions at the hearing, at which point the adjudicator observed that they did not form part of the claim and that neither the tenants nor the Tribunal were on notice of it.

[32] The Tribunal might have exercised a discretion to stand the matter down or adjourn for the application to be amended for the rent claim to be considered, but it was not obliged to do so, and, in fact, this may not have been procedurally fair to the tenants nor a reasonable use of the Tribunal's resources in a high-volume fast-paced jurisdiction.

[33] Again, the onus is on the parties to take care in their dealings with Tribunal matters and to act in their own best interests and Ray White Sunnybank Hills appears simply to have failed to make its claim for rent arrears in filing its application at first instance.

[34] Had Ray White Sunnybank Hills been the applicant in these proceedings, their application for leave to appeal or appeal on this ground would not have succeeded because there is no apparent error in the decision of the Tribunal below. As Mr Zhang is the applicant in these proceedings, this point is moot.

[35] As the claim for rent arrears has not been litigated, it is a matter for the lessor to consider whether any further action can be pursued to recover the sum it says is outstanding.[8]

[36] For the reasons given, had the application to leave to appeal or appeal not been dismissed because Mr Zhang lacked standing to bring it, leave to appeal would have been refused in any event, because there is no arguable case of error in the primary decision.

[37] Nor is the claim one of general importance wherein a decision by the Appeal Tribunal would be to the public advantage.

[38] The application for leave to appeal and appeal is dismissed.

[1] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act), s 143(3).

[2] QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2008] QCA 257; [2009] 1 Qd R 41.

[3] Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232, 2.

[4] QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2008] QCA 257; [2009] 1 Qd R 41.

[5] 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, 577, 580.

[6] [2024] QCATA 12.

[8] See Wallace v Hull [2024] QCATA 70.