Archer Investments Pty Ltd v Dwan - [2016] QMC 20

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Archer Investments Pty Ltd v Dwan and Anor [2016] QMC 20

PARTIES:

Archer Investments Pty Ltd
(Applicant)

v

Gregory Paul Dwan and Karen Natasha Dwan
(Respondents)

FILE NO/S:

WAR0062/15

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

QCAT Hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Warwick Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

7 October 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Warwick

HEARING DATE:

30 September 2016

MAGISTRATE:

A Thacker

ORDER:

1.       The name of the applicant be amended to Julie Archer.

2.       The residential tenant’s agreement the subject of these proceedings ended on 19th March 2016.

3.       The applicant pay to the respondents sum $6865.00 within 30 days.

The applicant's application and the respondents' counter-claim are otherwise dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

COUNSEL:

Mr Somers for the applicant

SOLICITORS:

Mr Krahenbring, Wonderley & Hall for the respondents

Background

This is a dispute about residential tenancy of property owned by the respondents situated at 92 Warfields Road, Allora ("the property"). The tenants were Chris and Julie Archer. There has also been a dispute about aspects of a rental purchase agreement associated and which failed but that is not the subject of the application before this Tribunal.

The law

The Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (referred to as "the RTRAA") manages all tenancy agreements in Queensland in conjunction with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (referred to as "QCAT") where disputes arise between the landlord and the tenant.

Neither party was legally represented until recently. I take that into account in understanding and considering how each party attempted to use the RTRAA and the usual forms to progress procedures under the Act. I also apply this to the parties' failure to utilise and / or comply with the RTRAA. A degree of leniency ought to be provided to the parties on that account.

As the matter arises out of a tenancy agreement this tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute: per section 12 (1) and (4) (f) QCAT.

The emphasis in QCAT requires this Tribunal to "act quickly, and with as little formality and technicality as is consistent with a fair and proper consideration of the issues before it"[1] and the "jurisdiction is plainly intended under QCAT to offer speedy justice in claims involving, in comparative terms against Court hierarchy, the smallest sums about which citizens are in dispute".[2]
[1] QCAT Act ss 3, 4 and 28, Kilpatrick v Tighnabruaich Properties Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 208 at [8]
[2]Garland and Anor v Butler McDermott Lawyers (2011] QCATA 151 per Justice Alan Wilson, President at (13]

In this case, I make particular mention of the following aspects of QCAT: Section 13 states that the tribunal must make orders that it considers "fair and equitable" to the parties to the proceeding in order to resolve the dispute but may, if the tribunal considers it appropriate, make an order dismissing the application. Section 28 sets out the procedures for conduct of hearings including that the tribunal must act fairly and according to the substantial merits of the case; is…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Archer Investments Pty Ltd v Dwan and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] QMC 20
Decision Date: 7 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Archer Investments Pty Ltd v Dwan was a dispute between the applicant, Julie Archer, and the respondents, Dwan, regarding the termination of a residential tenancy agreement. The matter was heard in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The primary issue before the tribunal was whether the applicant had the authority to act on behalf of Archer Investments Pty Ltd and whether the residential tenancy agreement had validly terminated. The tribunal also had to determine the financial obligations of the parties following the termination of the tenancy.

The tribunal found that Julie Archer did not have the authority to act on behalf of Archer Investments Pty Ltd, as she was not a director or authorised representative of the company. The tribunal emphasised the importance of formalising the authority of individuals acting on behalf of a company, especially in legal proceedings. Regarding the termination of the residential tenancy agreement, the tribunal concluded that the agreement had indeed ended on 19th March 2016. However, the tribunal held that the applicant was not entitled to seek a termination of the agreement based on the respondents' alleged breaches. The tribunal further determined that the applicant owed the respondents a sum of $6865.00, which represented unpaid rent and other charges.

In light of these findings, the tribunal dismissed the applicant's application and the respondents' counter-claim, except for the financial obligation. The tribunal ordered the applicant to pay the respondents $6865.00 within 30 days. Additionally, the tribunal amended the applicant's name to Julie Archer to reflect her true identity in the proceedings. The tribunal's decision highlights the importance of establishing proper authority when acting on behalf of a company and the consequences of failing to do so. Furthermore, the case serves as a reminder of the need for clear communication and documentation in residential tenancy agreements to avoid disputes and ensure a fair outcome for both parties involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The name of the applicant be amended to Julie Archer.

2. The residential tenant’s agreement the subject of these proceedings ended on 19th March 2016.

3. The applicant pay to the respondents sum $6865.00 within 30 days.

The applicant's application and the respondents' counter-claim are otherwise 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.

CITATION:	Archer Investments Pty Ltd v Dwan and Anor [2016] QMC 20
PARTIES:	Archer Investments Pty Ltd (Applicant) v Gregory Paul Dwan and Karen Natasha Dwan (Respondents)
FILE NO/S:	WAR0062/15
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	QCAT Hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	Warwick Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON:	7 October 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Warwick
HEARING DATE:	30 September 2016
MAGISTRATE:	A Thacker
ORDER:	1. The name of the applicant be amended to Julie Archer. 2. The residential tenant’s agreement the subject of these proceedings ended on 19th March 2016. 3. The applicant pay to the respondents sum $6865.00 within 30 days. The applicant's application and the respondents' counter-claim are otherwise dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
COUNSEL:	Mr Somers for the applicant
SOLICITORS:	Mr Krahenbring, Wonderley & Hall for the respondents