Licence refusal put on hold so a real estate agent’s appeal still has value (QCAT, 2026)

What happened

The agent held a real estate agent licence that was due to expire on 29 July 2023. An application to renew it was made on 14 July 2023, before expiry. On 24 November 2023 the Chief Executive of the Office of Fair Trading, Department of Justice and Attorney-General refused to renew the licence on the ground that the agent was not a suitable person to be granted a real estate agent licence.

The agent applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a review of that refusal. A review is a fresh look at a government decision by the tribunal, which can confirm, change or replace it. On 30 April 2026 the tribunal confirmed the Chief Executive's original decision. On 28 May 2026 the agent filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal, together with an application to stay the tribunal's decision. A stay is an order that puts a decision on hold so it is not acted on for the time being.

Two other dates mattered to the stay argument. Two contracts of sale, for a lot in the Stuart Patterson Lodge Community Title Scheme and for catering and letting agreements, were entered into on 24 April 2026. The agent then deactivated the licence on 6 May 2026. Deactivation was the agent's own step, not something the Chief Executive did.

The stay application was heard and decided on the papers, meaning there was no oral hearing and the Appeal Tribunal worked from the written material. Both sides filed submissions. The decision was delivered on 7 September 2026.

What each side wanted

The agent asked for a stay of the review decision, saying that without one the two contracts of sale and the catering and letting agreements could not be completed. The Chief Executive accepted that an arguable appeal might exist but said the appeal had no substantial merits, that any harm the agent faced came from the licence being deactivated rather than from refusing a stay, that a stay would not cause the Chief Executive significant detriment, and that the public interest did not support a stay when findings had been made that the agent was not suitable to hold a licence.

What the tribunal decided

The Appeal Tribunal granted the stay. The order was that "the application to stay a decision is granted so as to prevent implementation of refusal of renewal of the licence, and only to preserve the status quo of a deactivated licence."

No money was ordered either way. The effect of the order is narrow: the refusal to renew is not put into effect while the appeal is on foot, and the licence continues to exist in its deactivated state. The Appeal Tribunal said expressly that a stay cannot cause the renewal to be granted.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The Appeal Tribunal first had to decide whether the agent could appeal at all. Section 190 of the Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld) gives the Chief Executive a right to appeal a QCAT decision on a question of law, and the Act says nothing about an appeal by the person who applied for the review. The Appeal Tribunal held that, without an express ban, a right of appeal exists under section 142 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

Next came the question of whether a stay was even needed. Section 177 of the Property Occupations Act puts an automatic hold on the Chief Executive's decision to secure the effectiveness of a review, but says the hold does not run past the time QCAT decides the application. The Apped Tribunal concluded that if Parliament had wanted that automatic hold to last through an appeal it would have said so, as it has in other legislation, so the agent was entitled to apply for a stay.

The Appeal Tribunal then weighed the usual stay factors: whether there is a reasonably arguable case, whether the applicant suffers real harm if no stay is given, and where the balance of convenience lies, along with the public interest and any effect on other people. On a preliminary view the grounds of appeal were not strong, which weighed against a stay. The claimed harm about the contracts did not help the agent either, because the contracts were signed on 24 April 2026 and the licence was deactivated by the agent on 6 May 2026, so the inability to act flowed from deactivation rather than from refusing a stay. The Chief Executive accepted it would not suffer significant detriment, and because a stay cannot grant a renewal, the Appeal Tribunal found no impact on the public interest.

What decided the application was the risk of the appeal being rendered pointless. If the refusal were carried into effect, the licence would no longer exist, so if the appeal later succeeded and a decision to renew were substituted, that win could be worthless. The Appeal Tribunal noted section 60 of the Act keeps a licence in force until a renewal application is decided, treated the appeal as part of the review process, and relied on observations of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection v Alphadale Pty Limited that it is the original decision, as confirmed on review, that keeps operating unless stayed. On that basis a stay was granted to preserve the status quo, and nothing more.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, appealing a tribunal decision that confirmed a government decision about your licence or registration, this decision shows that an appeal does not automatically pause the decision you are appealing. An automatic statutory pause that applies during a review can end when the tribunal decides the review, so a separate stay application may be the only thing keeping the original decision from taking effect.

It also shows what a stay can and cannot do. A stay holds a decision where it is; it does not give you the thing the decision refused. Here the hold preserved a deactivated licence, nothing more. The factor that carried the day was not the strength of the appeal, which the Appeal Tribunal described as not strong, but the fact that without a hold a successful appeal would have had nothing left to attach to. Timing also mattered: harm you have caused yourself, or that flowed from a separate step you took, is treated differently from harm caused by the decision taking effect.

In disputes with a regulator or another party about a decision that affects your business, the step most people take first is a written response or notice that sets out their position and the facts and documents they rely on, before any application to a tribunal or an appeal is lodged.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a QCAT application. More decisions: QCAT cases and other civil disputes.

Source: Galagher v Chief Executive, Department of Justice [2026] QCATA 134 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.