Alikhan v Mian Prestige Real Estate trading as Ray White Runaway Bay

In the case of Alikhan v Mian Prestige Real Estate trading as Ray White Runaway Bay, the parties were tenants and the real estate agency, and the dispute was regarding the termination of a residential tenancy. The court involved was the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The tenants argued that the real estate agents had served them with a Notice to Leave on false grounds and that the notice was retaliatory. The agents claimed that they had legitimate reasons for requiring vacant possession and denied any retaliatory intent.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the notice served by the agents was valid and if the QCAT adjudicator was correct in issuing a termination order. The tenants argued that the notice was invalid because it was based on a ground not available under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008, and therefore the terms of their fixed tenancy continued to apply on a periodic basis. The tenants also claimed that they were not given an opportunity to present evidence supporting their allegation of retaliatory action by the agents, which breached the rules of procedural fairness.

The court found that the notice served by the agents was not valid as it was based on a ground not available under the Act, and therefore the tenancy continued on a periodic basis. The court also found that the QCAT adjudicator had made an error in law by wrongly construing the Act and that the QCAT had breached the rules of procedural fairness by not giving the tenants an opportunity to present evidence. The court concluded that the termination order issued by the QCAT was incorrect and should be set aside. The court ordered that the tenancy continue on a periodic basis and that the tenants be given an opportunity to present evidence to support their allegation of retaliatory action by the agents.