Blue Fox Property Group Pty Ltd v Gledhill - [2025] QCATA 15

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Blue Fox Property Group Pty Ltd & Ors v Gledhill & Anor [2025] QCATA 15

PARTIES:

BLUE FOX PROPERTY GROUP PTY LTD

(applicant/appellant)

KAREN VENZ

(applicant/appellant)

WESLEY VENZ

(applicant/appellant)

v

DANIELLE LYN GLEDHILL

(respondent)

NICOLAS ALAN GARCIA PIERAGOSTINI

(RESPONDENT)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL324-23

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

Coolangatta Claim 25/23

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

18 February 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Brown

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW HEARING – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – QUESTION OF FACT – leave to appeal – where decision appealed on basis that evidence did not support making of orders – where appeal grounds raise questions of fact – where appellants sought to rely on fresh evidence – where adjudicator’s findings were rationally based on evidence

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142(2), s 142(3), s 146, s 147

Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232

Ericson v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCA 391
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
Langdale v Danby [1982] 1 WLR 1123

McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577

Spalding v Filipetto [2022] QCATA 56

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

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this appeal about?

This is an appeal from the decision of an adjudicator in the minor civil dispute jurisdiction.
The appellants leased residential premises to the respondents. The respondents vacated the premises after discovering that the local authority had not approved the premises for residential letting.
The appellants commenced a proceeding for a minor civil dispute claiming outstanding rent, repairs and cleaning, and a break lease fee. The respondents filed a counter application seeking to recover, among other amounts, the increase in rent they paid after vacating the appellants’ premises and costs incurred in respect of food spoilage resulting from electricity outages. Other amounts were claimed by the respondents which are not relevant in this appeal.
Following a hearing, the adjudicator made various orders. Of relevance to this appeal, the adjudicator ordered that the appellants were liable to the respondent:
(a)In sum of $2,615.76 for increased rent paid by the respondents under the new residential tenancy agreement for premises from the date they vacated the premises until the tenancy ended;
(b)In the sum of $550.00 for the loss of food resulting from electricity supply interruptions to the premises.
The appellants appeal the adjudicator’s decision.
Appeals – the legislative framework
A party to a proceeding may appeal to the appeal tribunal against a decision of the tribunal in the proceeding.[1] Leave is required to appeal a decision in a proceeding for a minor civil dispute.[2] The principles to be…

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 Blue Fox Property Group Pty Ltd v Gledhill 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 15
Decision Date: 18 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Blue Fox Property Group Pty Ltd v Gledhill, the dispute revolves around claims made by the respondents regarding electricity supply outages at the premises during their tenancy, leading to significant food loss in their refrigerator/freezer. The matter was initially heard by an adjudicator, who awarded the respondents compensation in the amount of $550.29. The appellants, Blue Fox Property Group, sought to appeal this decision, arguing that the evidence did not support the making of orders in favour of the respondents.

The appeal raised two main issues: whether the adjudicator's decision was based on evidence and whether the appellants could rely on fresh evidence not presented to the adjudicator. The court examined the submissions and evidence presented before the adjudicator, including photographs, a schedule of lost food, and an email from the respondents. The court concluded that the adjudicator's findings were rationally based on the evidence presented, and the appellants' attempts to introduce fresh evidence were not permissible under the established rules.

The Appeal Tribunal determined that the grounds of appeal raised questions of fact and did not identify any error by the adjudicator. The court found that it was not an error to prefer one version of the facts to another, provided the findings had rational support in the evidence. The Appeal Tribunal also noted that the adjudicator's decision would not be disturbed if it had reasonable support in the evidence, even if another reasonable view was possible.

ORDERS:
Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal 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

Ground of appeal 2 is not made out. Conclusion The appellants have failed to demonstrate error by the adjudicator. There is no matter of general importance requiring a decision by the Appeal Tribunal. Leave to appeal is refused.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Both the grounds of appeal raise questions of fact. ConsiderationGround of appeal 1 The counter-application filed by the respondents in the proceeding below set out in a relatively comprehensive way the various claims and included both written submissions and supporting documents. I do not understand it to be contentious in this appeal that there were electricity supply outages to the premises during the period the respondents were tenants. The respondents submitted that on two occasions the electricity outages lasted for three days or more resulting in the complete loss of food in the respondents’ refrigerator/freezer. The amount claimed of $550.29 was said by the respondents to be an estimate. The respondents referred to specific periods of electricity outage in January 2023 and October 2022. Before the adjudicator were various photographs taken by the respondents of what was said to be spoiled food. Also before the adjudicator was a document prepared by the respondents ‘Schedule of Lost Food – 30 January 2023’ which included an itemised list of food items with corresponding costs totalling $230.29. The document also set out a claim for $320 being an estimate of food losses in the ‘first incident’ in October 2022. This claim was not itemised. Also in evidence was an email from the respondents to the agent dated 20 January 2023 in which the respondents noted that the refrigerator had been half empty during the January 2023 power outage and fully stocked during the October 2022 power outage. The appellants, in their appeal submissions, say various things about the itemised food loss claim prepared by the respondents. Much, if not all, of what the appellants say in their submissions is an attempt to adduce fresh evidence. Directions were made by the Appeal Tribunal regarding any application by a party to rely upon additional evidence. No application was filed by the appellants. Fresh evidence will only be permitted in an appeal if the following conditions are met: the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the hearing; the evidence would probably have had an important influence on the result the case although it need not be decisive; the evidence must be credible although not incontrovertible.[11] The appellants could have adduced the evidence contained in the submissions at the hearing before the adjudicator. I disregard the further evidence sought to be relied upon. [11]Langdale v Danby [1982] 1 WLR 1123. It was open on the evidence before the adjudicator to assess the respondents’ loss in respect of refrigerated foodstuffs in the amount awarded. The Appeal Tribunal has previously observed:It is not an appellable error to prefer one version of the facts to another, or to give less weight to one party’s case than he or she thinks it should receive. Findings of fact will not normally be disturbed if they have rational support in the evidence, even if another reasonable view is available. Where reasonable minds may differ, a decision cannot properly be called erroneous, simply because one conclusion has been preferred to another possible view.[12] [12]Spalding v Filipetto [2022] QCATA 56, [19]-[20].