Atkinson v Anderson - [2025] QCATA 69

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Atkinson v Anderson [2025] QCATA 69

PARTIES:

TRAVIS ATKINSON

(applicant)

v

MONICA ANDERSON

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL020-25

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO:

MCDT201-23

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

On the papers

HEARING DATE:

18 July 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

MEMBER:

Judicial Member Stilgoe OAM

ORDER/S:

1.     Application to file fresh evidence refused.

2.     Application to appeal allowed.

3.     Appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where there was an application for minor civil dispute – residential tenancy dispute – whether the Tribunal below erred in fact or law – where the Tribunal below made an error of law – where the error did not cause a substantial injustice – where application to appeal allowed – where appeal refused

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28, s 142(3)(a)(i), s 427

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 101, s 116(1), s 249, s 277(1), s 419, s 420, s

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kenny v Preen [1963] 1 QB 499
Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513
Mulcahy v Hoyne (1925) 36 CLR 41
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294
Roberts v McGrath Estate Agents Springfield [2021] QCAT 427

Worrall v Commissioner for Housing for the ACT (2001) 163 FLR 414

APPEARANCES:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

In April 2023, Travis Atkinson and his partner moved into a room in Monica Anderson’s home at the Sunshine Coast.
Within the first two weeks of moving into the property, a dispute arose between the parties. As a result, on 13 May 2023 Ms Anderson issued Mr Atkinson with a Notice to Leave.
Mr Atkinson and his partner left the property on 21 May 2023. At that time, all outstanding rent was paid, and the bond was returned.
Mr Atkinson and his partner were unable to find alternative accommodation and began living at a National Park Campsite.
On 8 November 2023, Mr Atkinson made an application for minor civil dispute – residential tenancy dispute to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘QCAT’) claiming that he was “unlawfully evicted”.
Mr Atkinson claimed the following amounts:

Description of Claim

Amount

Partial refund of rent

$285

Fuel expenses

$405

Storage container fees

$220.50

Loss of past income

$7,500

Loss of future income

$3,000

General damages, stress, humiliation, loss of dignity, all related suffering and hurt

$10,000

Exemplary damages

$3,200

QCAT application fee

$379.50

Total

$24,990

The Tribunal below determined that Mr Atkinson had not made out his case for compensation on a fair and reasonable basis under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (‘RTRA Act’). The Tribunal dismissed the application.
Mr Atkinson has appealed the Tribunal’s decision on questions of mixed fact and law.
Because this is an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.[1] Leave to appeal will usually…

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 Atkinson v Anderson

Details

AGLC: Atkinson v Anderson [2025] QCATA 69
Case: [2025] QCATA 69
Decision Date: 18 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Atkinson v Anderson arose from a dispute between a tenant and a landlord over the latter's decision to terminate the lease of the former. Atkinson, the tenant, had engaged in a legal challenge against Anderson, the landlord, in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The tenant's appeal against the Tribunal's decision was subsequently heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Atkinson sought to contest the termination of the lease, claiming that the Tribunal had made an error in either fact or law.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal's decision was erroneous and, if so, whether this error constituted a substantial injustice to Atkinson. The court considered the principles governing appeals from the CAT, specifically focusing on the grounds of error in fact or law, and whether such errors warranted an appeal. The court also needed to determine if the error in law, if any, resulted in a substantial injustice that would necessitate a new hearing.

The court found that the Tribunal had indeed made an error of law, but this error did not result in a substantial injustice to Atkinson. Given that the error did not materially impact the outcome of the proceedings, the appeal was deemed not to have substantial merit. Therefore, the application to appeal was allowed, but the appeal itself was refused. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principle that errors in law that do not cause substantial injustice are not grounds for overturning the decision of the Tribunal. The court's final orders reflected this reasoning, upholding the Tribunal's decision and dismissing Atkinson's appeal.

Orders