Bell v Yeronga Village Pty Ltd - [2025] QCATA 12

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRUBUNAL

CITATION:

Bell v Yeronga Village Pty Ltd [2025] QCATA 12

PARTIES:

REGINALD JOHN BELL

(applicant)

v

YERONGA VILLAGE PTY LTD ATF THE YV UNIT TRUST T/AS THE VILLAGE RETIREMENT GROUP

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL081-23

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO:

OCL102 of 2021

MATTER TYPE

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

4 February 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

MEMBER:

Judicial Member Stilgoe OAM

ORDER/S:

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The applications in OCL058 21 and OCL10221 are dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – RETIREMENT VILLAGE – leave not required as appeal on legal issues only – where Tribunal failed to respond to a substantial, clearly articulated argument raised squarely on the material before it – where Appeal allowed.

REAL PROPERTY – RETIREMENT VILLAGE – whether the respondent’s conduct was misleading and deceptive under s 86 of Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld) – where contract previously terminated - where available remedy is the setting aside of the contract – whether applicant entitled to compensation for breaches of ss 60 and 67 of Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld) – where evidence provided was insufficient – Applications dismissed.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 142, s 146

Retirement Villages Act 1999, s 9, s 21, s 22, s 60, s 67, s 86, s 167, s 169, s 170, s 171, s 173, s 191, s 193

Anthony Hordern & Sons Ltd v Amalgamated Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia (1932) 47 CLR 1

Brown and Anor v Noosa Constructions Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 194
Chancellor Park Retirement Village Pty Ltd v Retirement Village Tribunal [2004] 1 Qd R 346
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2003) 77 ALJR 1088
Leach and Anor v Wishart Christian Village Association Inc [2012] QCAT 467
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA (2019) 264 CLR 421
The King v Wallis (1949) 78 CLR 529

Young v Lawton [2018] QCATA 98

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 November 2019, Reginald Bell purchased a right to reside in a retirement village operated by Yeronga Village Pty Ltd. He lived in the village until he sold his right in September 2021.
In August 2021, Mr Bell filed a ‘Dispute notice for referral to mediation’ alleging Yeronga had breached provisions of the Retirement Villages Act 1999.
The mediation was unsuccessful. Mr Bell filed a further application for a Tribunal hearing seeking:
(a)an order, under s 170(2), setting aside the residence contract;
(b)orders, under s 193(2), requiring Yeronga to compensate loss and damages to Mr Bell; and
(c)any other orders, under s 191, considered by the Tribunal to be just to resolve the matter.
The Tribunal dismissed Mr Bell’s applications. He now appeals that decision submitting that the Tribunal erred in:
(a)failing to consider its power to grant relief under s 191, via s 191(4) or s 167;
(b)failing…

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 Bell v Yeronga Village Pty Ltd 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: [2025] QCATA 12
Decision Date: 4 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bell v Yeronga Village Pty Ltd involved a dispute concerning a retirement village. The applicant, Bell, sought to challenge the respondent, Yeronga Village Pty Ltd, regarding alleged misleading and deceptive conduct under the Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld). The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) and subsequently appealed to the Queensland Civil Appeal Court. The appeal focused on the tribunal's failure to consider a substantial argument presented by the applicant.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's conduct was misleading and deceptive under section 86 of the Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld) and if the applicant was entitled to compensation for breaches of sections 60 and 67 of the same Act. Additionally, the court examined whether the contract could be set aside, given that it had already been terminated. The applicant argued that the tribunal's decision to dismiss the claims was flawed as it failed to properly address the arguments raised.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the tribunal did not respond to the applicant's clearly articulated argument, which was squarely based on the material presented. The tribunal's failure to address this substantial argument constituted a significant error. The appeal was allowed on this basis, and the matter was remitted to QCAT for reconsideration. However, regarding the applicant's entitlement to compensation, the court held that the evidence provided was insufficient to support such a claim. As a result, the applications for compensation were dismissed. The court did not make any further orders beyond the remittal to QCAT for reconsideration of the misleading and deceptive conduct claim.

Orders