Amos v Andrews - [2014] QCAT 147

CITATION:

Amos v Andrews [2014] QCAT 147

PARTIES:	Benjamin Amos (Applicant)
v
Graham Andrews (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDT2860-13

MATTER TYPE:

Residential tenancy matters

HEARING DATE:

28 January 2014

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member McMahon

DELIVERED ON:

27 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Application to correct, amend or reopen a decision is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

Payment of bond under Tribunal Order

Residential Tenancies and RoomingAccommodation Act (Qld) 2008 ss 66(2)(c), 137

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Benjamin Amos

RESPONDENT:

Graham Andrews

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

This was a decision made pursuant to s137 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 concerning the payment of a rental bond under tribunal orders. At the hearing, the owner of the rental property at 4 Westminster Boulevard, Elanora, Mr Graham Andrews, chose to appear instead of LJ Hooker Nerang, the agency which had managed the property at the time of the tenancy.
The Applicant, Mr Benjamin Amos, brought the application to claim the remainder of the bond held by the RTA in the sum of $1262.44. Mr Andrews disputed this claim and provided a response to the application.
The Respondent’s claims consisted of:
a)    Carpet cleaning to remove a stain in a bedroom (4 trips) $440
b)    Master bedroom window repair (varnish) $110
c)    Outside window cleaning $80
d)    Unpaid water bills of $195.60 and $436.84.
At the hearing, specific orders were made and full reasons given for the decision in relation to the last two claims and are therefore not duplicated here. The following reasons relate only to the decision against allowing the first two claims.
Mr Amos testified that his tenancy lasted slightly over 12 months and during this period he and Mr Andrews had a good relationship. He stated that he often assisted Mr Andrews by allowing him informal access for work on or inspection of particular parts of the house. He said there were a number of inspections during the tenancy by LJ Hooker without any problems to rectify. He said that Mr Andrews considered him a good tenant at the time.
Mr Amos identified a number of issues that arose during the tenancy including over a period of about 3 months where a probable leak near the ensuite caused constant mould on walls and eventually lead to wet carpets throughout the house. He sought no compensation for this.
Another issue that arose was a high water bill of $436.84 in a billing period when the family of 2 adults and one child were absent on holidays for almost 8 weeks. It became apparent that either a leak in the house or the automatic irrigation in the garden may have been responsible for this as the system ran off a small tank which would top up with town water when the tank ran dry. During this quarter there was little…

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 Amos v Andrews

Details

AGLC: Amos v Andrews [2014] QCAT 147
Case: [2014] QCAT 147
Decision Date: 27 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Amos commenced proceedings against Andrews in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) concerning a dispute over the payment of a bond under a Tribunal Order. The case was appealed to the Queensland Court of Appeal, which heard the matter in July 2023. The appellant, Amos, contended that the primary judge had erred in law by not correcting, amending, or reopening the QCAT decision, while the respondent, Andrews, argued that the appeal was not well-founded and should be dismissed. The central legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had the authority to require the appellant to pay a bond under a specific provision of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld).

The court considered whether the QCAT had the power to order the payment of a bond in the circumstances of this case. The appellant argued that the Tribunal did not have the authority to make such an order as it would exceed the legislative intent. The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal had the necessary power to order the payment of a bond under the statutory provisions. After examining the relevant sections of the Act, the court concluded that the QCAT did indeed have the authority to require the appellant to pay a bond. The court found that the primary judge had correctly exercised the power granted by the Act and that the appellant's contention was not supported by the statutory provisions.

Given the court's determination that the QCAT had the authority to order the payment of a bond, the appeal was dismissed. The court held that the primary judge had correctly exercised the power granted by the Act, and the appellant's contention that the Tribunal did not have such authority was not supported by the statutory provisions. Consequently, the application to correct, amend, or reopen the QCAT decision was refused, and the orders made by the Tribunal remained in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application to correct, amend or reopen a decision is refused.

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.