(f) By way of the Adjudicator's Reasons for Decision, the Fabrication and Lies become labeled as an
"Administrative Error" as per
(b) above.
(g) It is believed, that the
"Administrative Error" was an intentional fabrication to mislead the Adjudicator, and which did mislead the Adjudicator, and as such, reveals a sordid pattern of deceit that ultimately resulted in an unfair dismissal of the Applicant tenants' claims.
(h) A
brief of the evidence provides an illustration of facts, as to how the deceit was achieved.
(i) It is not only the current evidence showing the
"Administrative Error" to be fabricated lies, it is
also a
fact that the Second Respondent Real Estate business and the PM reluctantly, have since arranged for their lawyers to oversee compensation to the Applicant tenants for the dishonesty they suffered. By providing that compensation, it is believed that it can only be, an implied admission to the
Fabrication and Lies, and a desire to end the exposure of their dishonesty on websites published by a tenant that included the
brief of evidence that illustrates the timeline of events.
(j) The fabricated lies (which are believed to be potentially criminal), took the Applicant tenants
again by total surprise for which they were not prepared, and to which they
loudly objected.
(k) The Adjudicator did not raise the Applicant tenants' objections with the PM, and did not follow up on the objections at any time within the hearing, as confirmed by the transcript, when the the Adjudicator had the power to inform herself of relevant evidence provided by
subsection 28(3)(c) of the QCAT Act.
(l) The Adjudicator did not deal with the surprise, which it is believed, should have been obvious to the Adjudicator, given the facts of
Complaint 4(a) to 4(d) and the loud objection at
(j) above, and
importantly, the so called
"Administrative Error" had not been included in the unsigned and undated
Response.
(m) It is believed, that the above matters are not consistent with
Common Law Procedural Fairness, nor are the consistent matters of surprise, which:
QCAT's established case law on "Surprise" at paragraphs [13] to [16] is quite clear on. Also SEE:
QCAT on Procedural Fairness.
(n) Despite the
strong vocal objections raised the tenants, Adjudicator Marshall dismissed their Application and
Statement of Claim, siding with the Property Manager’s fabricated claims raised by surprise.
(o) It is believed, that the above matters
(a) to
(n), along with the matters at Complaints
1,
2,
3 and
4 above, highlight a troubling procedure that QCAT Administration operates under, that does not follow proper procedure that is used in
Queensland Civil Procedure and throughout Australia.
QCAT ADMINISTRATION IS REQUESTED TO EXPLAIN:
(p) Given:
• the
"Administrative Error" had not been included in the
Response, or any other document filed by the PM; and
• the loud objection by the Applicant tenants to the lies (at
(j) above); and
• the facts outlined at Complaints
1,
2,
3 and
4 above;
why did the Adjudicator accept the
"Administrative Error" as being fact
?(q) Why did the Adjudicator not strike out the
Response when the
Response did not follow the
Civil Procedure in Queensland?
(r) Given the facts and beliefs at
(a) to
(o) above, along with the facts outlined at Complaints
1,
2,
3 and
4 above, why was it not obvious to the Adjudicator that
Common Law Procedural Fairness was not being followed
?
(s) Given the facts and beliefs at
(a) to
(o) above, along with the facts outlined at Complaints
1,
2,
3 and
4 above, why was it not obvious to the Adjudicator that subsection
subsection 31(1) of the Human Rights Act (QLD) was not being followed
?
(t) Given the facts at
(k), why did the Adjudicator fail to follow up the
strong vocal objections by the Applicant tenants?(u) Given the facts and beliefs at
(a) to
(o) above, along with the facts outlined at Complaints
1,
2,
3 and
4 above, why is this not a
Fraud upon the QCAT Tribunal and the Applicant tenants? 
