Adams v Kolkka - [2024] QCAT 219

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Adams v Kolkka [2024] QCAT 219

PARTIES:

SHANNON ADAMS

(applicant)

v

LISA KOLKKA

(respondent)

TORI KOLKKA

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

T1103/23

MATTER TYPE:

Residential tenancy matters

DELIVERED ON:

21 May 2024

HEARING DATE:

15 December 2023, 30 January 2024, 6 March 2024

HEARD AT:

Southport

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Alan Walsh

ORDERS:

1. The Application filed on 4 December 2023 is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRBUNAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE - TENANCY DISPUTE – where applicant residential tenant of respondents – where tenancy periodic – where respondents gave informal notice to end tenancy – where notice ineffective of itself – where applicant and respondents agreed to end tenancy early by separate written agreement – where vacant possession and keys returned by applicant – where applicant subsequently sought advice and alleged wrongful eviction – whether applicant wrongfully evicted – whether applicant’s evidence truthful – whether applicant suffered compensable loss and damage recoverable from respondents – whether causal connection - whether loss and damage proved – whether loss and damage mitigated

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 32C

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 8, s 9, s 10, s 11, s 12, s 13, s 29, s 52, s 53, s 54, s 55, s 56, s 58, s 61, s 62, s 65, s 66, s 67, s 70, s 83, s 84, s 85, s 86, s 87, s 88, s 89, s 90, s 91, s 183, s 185, s 188, s 277, s 280, s 281, s 291, s 293, s 325, s 326, s 327, s 334, s 335, s 336, s 337, s 340, s 342, s 343, s 345, s 347, s 349, s 350, s 351, s 414, s 415, s 416, s 417, s 419, s 420, s 421, s 426, s 429, Schedule 1 Part 1 Division 1 and Part 2 Division 1, Schedule 2

Re Nichol [2017] QSC 220

Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No. 7) [2019] FCA 496

South West Terminal Ltd v Achter Land & Cattle [2023] SKKB 116

Emojipedia “Gestures and expressions” “Thumbs Up”

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

In person, self-represented

Respondent:

In person, self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

Context

Shannon Adams is a former tenant of Lisa and Tori Kolkka. She exclusively occupied a self-contained “granny flat” at the back of their Broadbeach Waters home under a “Granny Flat Agreement” until 24 August 2023 when she left, returning one of two keys having lost the other and still owing rent.
In substance and character notwithstanding its bespoke content, the granny flat agreement was a residential tenancy agreement within the meaning of the provisions[1] of the Residential Tenanciesand Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (the RTRAA). There were no shared common facilities, and it had its own separate entry.
[1]Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), amongst others see s 5, s 6, s 8, s 9, s 10, s 11, s…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adams v Kolkka

Details

AGLC: Adams v Kolkka [2024] QCAT 219
Case: [2024] QCAT 219
Decision Date: 21 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this dispute are Adams, the applicant, and Kolkka, the respondents. The issue at hand revolves around a tenancy dispute in Queensland. Adams, the tenant, claimed wrongful eviction by the respondents, who were the landlords. The tenancy was periodic, and the respondents had given an informal notice to terminate the tenancy. However, the notice was deemed ineffective on its own. Subsequently, both parties agreed to end the tenancy early through a separate written agreement. Adams vacated the property and returned the keys to the respondents. After vacating, Adams sought advice and alleged wrongful eviction. The central legal issues before the court were whether Adams was wrongfully evicted, whether Adams' evidence was truthful, whether Adams suffered compensable loss and damage recoverable from the respondents, whether there was a causal connection between the loss and damage and the eviction, and whether the loss and damage were proven and mitigated.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It assessed the truthfulness of Adams' claims and the validity of the agreement to end the tenancy early. The court found that the notice to terminate the tenancy was ineffective, and the tenancy ended based on the separate written agreement. The court concluded that Adams was not wrongfully evicted as there was a valid agreement between the parties. Additionally, the court determined that Adams' claims of suffering compensable loss and damage were unsubstantiated. The court held that there was no causal connection between the loss and damage alleged by Adams and the eviction, and Adams failed to prove the loss and damage. Furthermore, the court found that Adams did not mitigate the loss and damage.

Based on the court's findings, the application filed by Adams was dismissed. The court ruled that Adams was not wrongfully evicted, and there was no compensable loss and damage recoverable from the respondents. The court dismissed the application, and no orders were made in favor of Adams.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Application filed on 4 December 2023 is dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.