Burness v Richardson and Wrench

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND


ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Burness v Richardson and Wrench & Ors [2020] QCATA 149

PARTIES: STUART LEE BURNESS

(applicant/appellant)

v

RICHARDSON AND WRENCH, TERRY SAUNDERS AND BEVERLEY SAUNDERS

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL110-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

Caboolture MCDT0200/20

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

6 October 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr J R Forbes, Member

ORDERS:

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – residential tenancy dispute – where notice to remedy default in payment of rent - where dispute as to quantum of arrears - where tenant evicted on ground of failure to leave – where tenant seeks to add a defence not raised at trial or in application for leave to appeal – where lessor seeks to adduce fresh evidence – where latter application unnecessary – where no reasonably appellable error demonstrated – where nature and limitations of application for leave considered – where application for leave dismissed

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 2, s 3, s 32, s 142

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 293, s 325, s 350 s 351

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175

Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1
Davison v Vickery’s Motors Ltd (in liq) (1925) 37 CLR 1
Devon v Capital Finance Australia Limited [2014] VSCA 73
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Pappas v Meiklejohn’s Accountants [2017] QCATA 60
PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd v Baird [2019] NSWCA 48
R v Vaughan [2011] QCA 234
Robinson v Corr [2011] QCATA 302
Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418
The Pot Man Pty Ltd v Reaoch [2011] QCATA 318

Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

  1. The proposed appellant[1] Stuart Lee Burness (`Burness’) leased residential premises at Caboolture (`the premises’) in January 2020. At the material times the landlords were Terry and Beverley Saunders, whose managing agent was Richardson and Wrench, Caboolture (`the agent’).

    [1]Leave to appeal is required: QCAT Act s 142(3).

  2. On 28 January 2020 a tenancy agreement (`the lease’) in Form 18a of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (`the Act’) was executed by the parties for a term commencing on that date and ending on 28 April 2020.

  3. The lease contains a common form clause authorising the agent to sue and to be sued on behalf of the landlords[2], but in this instance the latter have elected to be co-parties with the agent.[3] From now on, for convenience, I shall refer to those three parties as `R & W’.

    [2]Lease clause 43(2).

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Burness v Richardson and Wrench 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
[2020] QCATA 149
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Burness v Richardson and Wrench involved a dispute between a tenant and the lessors over a residential tenancy. The tenant, Burness, was evicted after a notice to remedy default was issued due to a dispute over unpaid rent. Burness sought to add a new defence in the appeal process that had not been raised in the trial or the initial application for leave to appeal. The lessors, Richardson and Wrench, sought to present fresh evidence in their defence. The court had to determine whether Burness could introduce a new defence and whether the lessors could adduce new evidence in their response.

The court examined the nature and limitations of the application for leave to appeal, focusing on whether any reasonably appellable error had been demonstrated. The court noted that the application for leave to appeal was not an opportunity to re-litigate the case or introduce new evidence. The court found that Burness's attempt to raise a new defence was not permissible and that the lessors' application to present fresh evidence was unnecessary as the existing evidence was sufficient to decide the appeal.

Given the court's findings, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court concluded that no reasonably appellable error had been demonstrated in the appeal process, and therefore, the application was not warranted. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements of an application for leave to appeal, particularly in relation to the introduction of new evidence or defences.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and made no further orders. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in appeal processes, particularly regarding the introduction of new evidence or defences.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal is 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.