Byrne v Clayfield College - [2013] QCATA 60

CITATION:

Byrne v Clayfield College [2013] QCATA 60

PARTIES:	Kellie Louise Byrne (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Clayfield College (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL183-12

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr J R Forbes, Member

DELIVERED ON:

27 February 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 – employment contract - staff accommodation in boarding school – whether contract gives rise to a tenancy within the meaning of the Act – school’s discretion to require accommodation for other purposes - whether limited control of occupier consistent with tenancy – whether determinate period of occupancy granted

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 3, 20, 28, 32, 123, 142,143
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008, ss 34, 38, 146, 237, 288, 329, 433

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41; [2008] QCA 257
Drew v Bundaberg Regional Council [2012] QPELR 350; [2011] QCA 359
Felton and Anor v Raine and Horne Real Estate [2011] QCATA 330
Mann v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd [2012] QCATA 142
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577

Robinson v Corr [2011] QCATA 302.

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS & Another (2010) 240 CLR 611
In Re W (an infant) [1971] AC 682
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014
Radaich v Smith (1959) 101 CLR 209

Western Australia v Ward (2002) 213 CLR 1
Rob Nichol Pty Ltd v Australia Nid Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 371

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Appellant Kellie Louise Byrne (“Byrne”) was employed by Clayfield College (“the College”) on April 2009 as Assistant to the Head of Boarding. An agreement in writing dated 8 December 2009 envisaged “tenure of five years subject to annual performance review”.[1]
[1] “Employment Contract” page 8, Annexure 1 to Byrne’s submission filed 28 March
It was agreed that she would be provided with accommodation “where available (permanent or temporary) ... and [such accommodation] will be provided where available and according to the needs of the Boarding House”.[2]
[2] Ibid.
In late January 2010 Byrne moved into accommodation at the College consisting of a bedroom, kitchenette, bathroom and laundry (“the unit”).
By letter dated 15 March 2011 the College requested Byrne to vacate the unit by 1 April 2011. The writer explained that, while Byrne remained medically unfit for duty[3], the unit was needed to accommodate “replacement supervisor staff”. In its place the College would “make available [to Byrne] ... one of the alternate sleep-over rooms”.
[3] Byrne states that…

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 Byrne v Clayfield College 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: [2013] QCATA 60
Decision Date: 27 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Byrne v Clayfield College, the applicant, a teacher employed by Clayfield College, sought a declaration that an employment contract gave rise to a tenancy under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008. The dispute arose from the applicant's contention that the contract, which included a clause allowing the school to require the applicant to provide accommodation for other purposes, and the lack of a determinate period for occupancy, meant that the arrangement constituted a tenancy. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The court was required to determine whether the employment contract, which provided for the applicant to occupy a room in exchange for teaching services, created a tenancy under the Act. The central legal issues were whether the school's discretion to require accommodation for other purposes, and the absence of a fixed term for the occupancy, were consistent with the existence of a tenancy. The court also needed to consider whether the limited control the applicant had over the room was sufficient to establish a tenancy.

The court found that the employment contract did not give rise to a tenancy within the meaning of the Act. The discretion held by the school to require the room for other purposes, and the lack of a fixed term for occupancy, indicated that the arrangement was not a tenancy. The court held that the limited control exercised by the occupier did not align with the statutory definition of a tenancy, and therefore, the applicant's claim was unsuccessful. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.