Arthur v Husheer; Gautron v Husheer

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Arthur & Anor v Husheer & Anor; Gautron & Anor v Husheer & Anor  [2019] QCATA 146

PARTIES:

In APL017-19
CRAIG ARTHUR AND RENEE ARTHUR

(applicants\appellants)

v
RICHARD HUSHEER AND ANGELA HUSHEER

(respondents)

In APL355-18

PIERRE GAUTRON AND SEBASTIEN LABOUCARIE

(applicants\appellants)

v

RICHARD HUSHEER AND ANGELA HUSHEER

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL017-19

APL355-18

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

In APL017-19 - MCDT1467/18

In APL355-18 - MCDT1509/18

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

21 October 2019

HEARING DATE:

25 July 2019

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Brown, Presiding
Member Howe
ORDERS:

In APL017-19

Leave to appeal refused

In APL355-18

1.   Leave to appeal granted.

2.   The decision of the tribunal made 10 December 2018 is set aside.

3.   Richard Husheer and Angela Husheer must pay Pierre Gautron and Sebastien Laboucarie ONE THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY-ONE DOLLARS AND NINETY CENTS ($1,661.90) within fourteen days of the date of this decision.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – WHAT IS – DISTINCTION BETWEEN QUESTION OF LAW AND QUESTION OF FACT

PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS, POWERS AND GENERALLY- INHERENT AND GENERAL STATUTORY POWERS – TO PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS – GENERALLY

ESTOPPEL – ESTOPPEL BY JUDGMENT – RES JUDICATA OR CAUSE OF ACTION ESTOPPEL – ISSUE ESTOPPEL – where landlord awarded damages for breach of management contract claim against agent calculated by reference to loss of rent – where landlord subsequently awarded damages for loss of rent in claim against tenants for breach of tenancy agreement claim against tenants – where landlord compensated for the same loss in both proceedings – whether res judicata arises – whether issue estoppel under s 126(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) – whether claim against tenants an abuse of process in relation to the claim for loss of rent where landlord had previously recovered such loss – where error of mixed law and fact – where leave to appeal allowed – where appeal decided by way of rehearing

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 126, s 142, s 147

Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464

Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232

Cairns Regional Council v Carey [2012] QCATA 150

Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404
Ericson v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCA 391
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388

Kuligowski v Metrobus (2004) 220 CLR 363

LPD Holdings (Aust) Pty Ltd v Russells [2017] QSC 45
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577

Moose Plastering Pty Ltd v Habul [2014] QCATA 354

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41

Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251

Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 507
WJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015]…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Arthur v Husheer; Gautron v Husheer 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
[2019] QCATA 146
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Arthur v Husheer; Gautron v Husheer, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was asked to consider appeals against decisions in two proceedings related to a residential tenancy. The landlords, Mr and Mrs Husheer, claimed damages from the tenants for breach of the tenancy agreement, and from the agents for breach of a management contract. The tenants appealed against the decision in the proceedings against them. The agents did not appeal. The main issue for the appeal court was whether the landlords had been double compensated for their loss of rent, and if so, whether the appeals should be dismissed as an abuse of process. The court found that the tenants had been double compensated for their loss of rent, and that there was an error of mixed law and fact in the decision in the tenant proceedings. The court held that issue estoppel did not arise in respect of the final decision in a proceeding for a minor civil dispute, as provided for in section 126 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). The appeal court set aside the decision in the tenant proceedings and ordered the landlords to repay the overpayment to the tenants. The appeal court refused leave to appeal in the agent proceedings, and dismissed the appeal in the tenant proceedings in part and allowed it in part.

Orders

Orders of the court

In APL017-19

Leave to appeal refused

In APL355-18

1. Leave to appeal granted.

2. The decision of the tribunal made 10 December 2018 is set aside.

3. Richard Husheer and Angela Husheer must pay Pierre Gautron and Sebastien Laboucarie ONE THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY-ONE DOLLARS AND NINETY CENTS ($1,661.90) within fourteen days of the date of this decision.

Background

Background to the litigation

If an appeal involves a question of law, unless the determination of the error of law decides the matter in its entirety in the appellant’s favour, the proceeding must be returned to the tribunal for reconsideration.[8][8]Ericson v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCA 391.The background to the appeals Mr Gautron and Mr Laboucarie (who will be referred to as the tenants) rented a property from Mr and Mr Husheer (who will be referred to as the landlords). Mr and Mrs Arthur (who will be referred to as the agents) managed the property for the landlords. The tenants entered into general tenancy agreement on 16 October 2017. The tenancy was for a term of 12 months ending on 29 October 2018. By Notice to leave dated 29 August 2018, the tenants were given notice to vacate the property by 29 October 2018. The tenants say that they were told by the agents that the landlords were selling the property. The tenants paid rent until 12 September 2018 and vacated the property on 13 September 2018, some 46 days prior to the date in the Notice to leave. The tenants moved into another property in the same complex on 13 September 2018. They say that they negotiated with the agents to facilitate the move to the new property. It is not disputed that when the tenants vacated they took with them a refrigerator and outdoor setting located at the property (the furniture). It is also not disputed that these items were owned by the landlords. The landlords say that they subsequently discovered that the tenants had vacated the property and not paid rent for the balance of the rental term. The landlords commenced proceedings in the tribunal against the agents claiming, essentially, damages for breach of contract[9] (the agent proceedings). The landlords then commenced further proceedings in the tribunal claiming from the tenants the arrears of rent, cleaning costs and the replacement of locks[10] (the tenant proceedings). [9]Application for minor civil dispute – residential tenancy, filed 5 November 2018[10]Application for minor civil dispute – residential tenancy, filed 16 November 2018 The agent proceedings were heard and decided on 5 December 2018. The agents were ordered to pay the landlords $3,611.83. The tenant proceedings were heard and decided on 10 December 2018. It was ordered that the rental bond of $2,080.00 be paid out to the landlords and that the tenants pay to the landlords $2,021.00. It is common ground among all parties that the orders made in the proceedings has resulted in the landlords being double compensated for their loss. The findings and orders made in the agent proceedings and in the tenant proceedingsThe agent proceedings The tribunal found:(a)The tenants were obliged to pay rent until 29 October 2018;(b)As a result of the tenants leaving the premises early, the landlords lost the benefit of the rent that would otherwise have been paid by the tenants from the date they left the premises until the tenancy ended;(c)The period of the term of the tenancy during which the tenants did not pay rent was from the 28th August 2018 until the 29th October 2018;(d)The amount of rent not paid during this period was $3,491.43;(e)The landlords and the agents had entered into a contract for the agents to manage the property;(f)The agents were required to provide the services under the contract with due care and skill;(g)The agents breached the management contract by failing to provide the services with due care and skill;(h)The agents permitted the tenants to leave the premises early resulting in the landlords losing the benefit of the rental payments that would otherwise have been made for the period from 28 August 2018 to 29 October 2018 in the amount of $3,491.43.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The tenants appeal the decision in the tenant proceedings. The ground of appeal relied upon by the tenants is that they were denied procedural fairness in not being permitted to present evidence which they say would have had an important impact upon the outcome of the proceedings. The tenants say that the agents gave them permission to vacate the property early and that they acted in reliance thereon. It is this evidence that is the subject of the tenants’ sole ground of appeal and which is the subject of their application to adduce fresh evidence. The application for fresh evidence The evidence sought to be adduced by the tenants is:(a)An undated letter from the agents to the tenants accepting the tenants notice of their intention to vacate the premises on 30 August 2018;(b)An email from the agents to the tenants dated 21 August 2018 in which the agents advised the tenants, inter alia, that the tenants would ‘not be charged a break lease due to having to move soon’ and inviting the tenants to consider moving to another property in the scheme;(c)An email from the tenants to the agents dated 22 August 2018 advising that, subject to there being no fees for breaking the lease, they were prepared to move to the new property;(d)Entry condition report dated 30 October 2017;(e)Exit condition report dated 14 September 2018. Fresh evidence will not usually be permitted in an appeal unless the person seeking to rely upon the evidence can establish each of the following:(a)The evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial;(b)The evidence, if allowed, would probably have an important impact on the result of the case (although it need not be demonstrated that it would be decisive); and (c)That the evidence is credible though it need not be incontrovertible.[11] [11] Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404. In the Application for minor civil dispute filed in the tenant proceedings the landlords sought ‘compensation for abandonment of a property’. The claims by the landlords set out in the Application included bond cleaning and lock replacement. It should have been readily apparent to the tenants that if they intended to resist the claims made by the landlords on the basis of an agreement they had reached with the agents to leave the property early, and relying upon the property condition reports, it would be necessary for them to adduce evidence to that effect at the hearing. In the course of the hearing the following exchange took place:MR LABOUCARIE: So what happened is we agreed with the manager that we had to leave because we had notice to leave. And the manager offer us a different unit within a good timeframe to leave a notice to the tenant that we were leaving and we left two weeks after. …MEMBER: Okay. So do you have any evidence of this agreement between you and the manager that the owner - - - MR LABOUCARIE: Yeah, we’ve got emails. MEMBER: - - - of the unit - - - MR LABOUCARIE: We’ve got emails.MEMBER: Pardon?MR LABOUCARIE: Can I show it to you. We’ve got emails from the manager. MEMBER: Well, do you want me to receive the that phone in the evidence and keep it here at the tribunal or do you have some printouts of that?MR LABOUCARIE: No, we haven’t got it on any printouts.MEMBER: Okay. Well, when you come to a tribunal, matters rise or fall sometimes on the evidence. I’m sure you understand that.MR GAUTRON: Yeah, we do.MEMBER: So I’m asking for you to corroborate what you say of the agreement between you and the manager about the owner – which is Richard here – consenting to you not paying any more rent there but rather that you pay rent at the new unit.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Issue estoppel does not arise in respect of a final decision in a proceeding for a minor civil dispute. Section 126 of the QCAT Act provides:126 Effect of decision (1) A decision of the tribunal in a proceeding is binding on all parties to the proceeding. (2) The making, by the tribunal, of a final decision in a proceeding for a minor civil dispute does not prevent a court or another tribunal making a decision about an issue considered (whether or not decided) by the tribunal in the proceeding if the issue is relevant to a proceeding for another matter before the court or other tribunal. In our view, the clear intent of s 126(2) is to prevent the operation of the doctrine of issue estoppel arising out of decisions by the tribunal in the minor civil dispute jurisdiction. The reference to ‘other tribunal’ includes, in our view, a reference to a differently constituted QCAT tribunal. Accordingly, issue estoppel does not arise in respect of the decisions under appeal. In the tenant proceedings the following exchange took place:MEMBER: … Now, what’s the name of the agent in this matter?MR HUSHEER: Craig and Renee Arthur.MEMBER: And are they involved in any kind of dispute - - - MR HUSHEER: Yes.MEMBER: - - - with you?MR HUSHEER: Last week we actually had a hearing with them.MEMBER: How did that go?MR HUSHEER: Well, we were claiming for the 12 months commission they were charging us.MEMBER: Yes.MR HUSHEER: And we were in favour of them passing us amount of three thousand, six hundred and – I can’t quite the last part in it – just over $3600.MEMBER: Okay. So where was that decided?MR HUSHEER: That was here.MEMBER: Okay. All right. So that was for the dispute between landlord and agent.MR HUSHEER: That’s right, yeah.MEMBER: Okay. So this is just the dispute between landlord and tenants.MR HUSHEER: Yes.MEMBER: I wasn’t too sure about what was going on there. There was some material in here indicating that there was a dispute between you and the agent, but that’s resolved by order now, is it?MR HUSHEER: That’s been resolved now. MEMBER: Okay. So – sorry – is any of this claim compromised by what was in dispute in that matter decided last week? So was it just the commission that was in dispute there or was it other things being decided as well?MR HUSHEER: it was just the commission we were here for.MEMBER: Okay. All right. So there was nothing to do with procedure or anything like that, about giving form 11, form 12, that sort of thing.MR HUSHEER: What were the forms? Sorry.MEMBER: Those are the notices of breach and notices to leave.MR HUSHEER: Yeah, that was – that did come up. Yeah.MEMBER: What was said there?MR HUSHEER: As we were selling our property, we – by law we’re advised to give the tenants four weeks – wasn’t it – two months notice to leave.MEMBER: Yes.MR HUSHEER: And they were issued that form. And after that, the tenants gave our manager at the time a intention to leave form, wanting to break lease basically. MEMBER: Okay.MR HUSHEER: Which we never saw or never given or times when the tenants wanted to move out.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Clearly the fresh evidence sought to be adduced by the tenants was available at the time of the hearing. Accordingly, it is unnecessary for us to address the other considerations for fresh evidence. The application for fresh evidence is refused. Consideration For the reasons that follow we conclude that there was no error by the tribunal in deciding the agent proceedings. The tribunal however erred in deciding the tenant proceedings. In each of the proceedings below, damages were awarded to the landlords for the loss of rent for the period from when the tenants vacated the property until the date the tenancy agreement ended. In each of the proceedings below, the same amount was awarded calculated in the same manner. The first issue to address is whether res judicata or issue estoppel arise in considering the present appeals. In Blair v Curran the distinction between res judicata and issue estoppel was explained:[12]… in the first the very right or cause of action claimed or put in suit has in the former proceedings passed into judgment, so that it is merged and has no longer an independent existence, while in the second, for the purpose of some other claim or cause of action, a state of fact or law is alleged or denied the existence of which is a matter necessarily decided by the prior judgment, decree or order.[12](1939) 62 CLR 464, 532. The doctrine of res judicata applies where a right or cause of action passes into judgment with the consequence that the right or cause of action “merges” with the judgment and no longer continues to have any independent existence.[13] There can be no res judicata unless the cause of action in earlier proceedings is the same as the cause of action being advanced in later proceedings. [13]LPD Holdings (Aust) Pty Ltd v Russells [2017] QSC 45. The cause of action advanced by the landlords in the agent proceedings was one for breach of the management contract. The cause of action advanced by the landlords in the tenant proceedings was one for breach of the tenancy agreement. The causes of action were different. Res judicata does not arise. Does issue estoppel arise? Issue estoppel does not arise in respect of a final decision in a proceeding for a minor civil dispute. Section 126 of the QCAT Act provides:126 Effect of decision (1) A decision of the tribunal in a proceeding is binding on all parties to the proceeding. (2) The making, by the tribunal, of a final decision in a proceeding for a minor civil dispute does not prevent a court or another tribunal making a decision about an issue considered (whether or not decided) by the tribunal in the proceeding if the issue is relevant to a proceeding for another matter before the court or other tribunal. In our view, the clear intent of s 126(2) is to prevent the operation of the doctrine of issue estoppel arising out of decisions by the tribunal in the minor civil dispute jurisdiction. The reference to ‘other tribunal’ includes, in our view, a reference to a differently constituted QCAT tribunal.