Cain v Daudet

Case [2020] QCATA 78

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Cain v Daudet [2020] QCATA 78

PARTIES:

CLINTON CAIN

(appellant)

v

MARC DAUDET

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL208-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT 357/19

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

25 May 2020

HEARING DATE:

14 May 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Hughes

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to appeal granted.

2.   The appeal is allowed in part.

3.   The Tribunal’s finding of $4,600 as a rent reduction is set aside.

4.   The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to rehear Marc Daudet’s claim for compensation for failure to provide quiet and peaceful enjoyment as a claim for compensation under section 419 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld).

5.   The appeal is otherwise dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

LANDLORD AND TENANT – RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES LEGISLATION – OBLIGATIONS, PROHIBITED MATTERS AND PROTECTION FOR LESSEES – RENT – where tenant claimed compensation – where lessor claimed compensation – where findings of fact about condition of property and damages awarded based on evidence adduced at hearing – where Tribunal has mandate to deal with matters fairly, quickly and economically – where Tribunal will not usually disturb findings of fact on appeal – where findings open on the evidence – where appeal is not opportunity for party to reargue their case - where ground of appeal dismissed

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – ADMISSION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE – IN GENERAL – where applicant applied for leave to appeal – where applicant sought to introduce evidence not adduced at first instance – where applicant did not explain why it did not file its material before original hearing – where evidence had little evidential weight and unlikely to affect outcome - where evidence should not be admitted 

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVING ERROR OF LAW – other cases – where applicant applied for leave to appeal – where error of law in application of section 94 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 1994 (Qld) – where provision does not provide for lump sum and only operates prospectively while tenancy continues - where claim properly considered as breach of Tenancy Agreement under section 419 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 1994 (Qld) 

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 143, s 146

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 94, s 419

Bourke v Kenjad Rentals [2019] QCATA 81
Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Campbell v Donker [2013] QCATA 6
Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1
Champion & Anor v Laterma Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] QCAT 392
Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404
Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
Gould v…

Continue reading Cain v Daudet

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cain v Daudet [2020] QCATA 78
Case
[2020] QCATA 78
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Cain v Daudet, the tenant, Dr Cain, appealed against the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal's (QCAT) decision which dealt with a dispute between a tenant and landlord. The tenant sought compensation for the landlord's failure to maintain the property in a habitable condition, while the landlord sought compensation for unpaid rent and damage to the property. The Court of Appeal reviewed the appeal to determine if there were any errors in the Tribunal's findings of fact or the application of law.

The primary legal issues involved whether the Tribunal's findings of fact were open on the evidence, the admission of fresh evidence in the appeal, and the correct application of relevant sections of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 1994 (Qld). Dr Cain argued that the Tribunal erred in its findings of fact and the application of section 94 of the Act. Dr Cain also sought to introduce fresh evidence in the form of quotes, invoices, correspondence, and photographs, which had not been adduced at the original hearing.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal process is not an opportunity for a party to re-argue their case. The Tribunal's mandate to deal with matters fairly, quickly, and economically is particularly important in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction. The Court held that Dr Cain's appeal was not an opportunity to present fresh evidence, as the appeal process is intended to correct errors made by the Tribunal. The Court found that Dr Cain did not satisfy the tests for admitting fresh evidence and that even if the evidence were admitted, it would likely not affect the outcome of the case. Regarding the application of section 94 of the Act, the Court held that the provision does not provide for a lump sum and only operates prospectively while the tenancy continues. Therefore, the claim should be considered as a breach of the Tenancy Agreement under section 419 of the Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, set aside the Tribunal's finding of $4,600 as a rent reduction, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to rehear Marc Daudet's claim for compensation for failure to provide quiet and peaceful enjoyment as a claim for compensation under section 419 of the Act. The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal granted.

2. The appeal is allowed in part.

3. The Tribunal’s finding of $4,600 as a rent reduction is set aside.

4. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to rehear Marc Daudet’s claim for compensation for failure to provide quiet and peaceful enjoyment as a claim for compensation under section 419 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld).

5. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

I will address the grounds of appeal below. Were the Tribunal’s findings of fact open on the evidence? Dr Cain’s application for leave to appeal essentially sought to re-argue his case by focusing on the Tribunal’s findings of fact, attaching numerous documents including quotes, invoices, correspondence and photographs. The appeal process is not an opportunity for a party to again present their case.[6] It is the means to correct an error by the Tribunal that decided the proceeding.[7] The Tribunal’s mandate to deal with matters fairly, quickly and economically[8] is most acute in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, where it determines around 30,000 applications each year.[6]Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39, [9].[7]Ibid.[8]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 4. Dr Cain did not identify which of the attachments were provided at the original hearing. To the extent that the attachments are fresh evidence, they are not admitted. This is because the Appeal Tribunal will only accept fresh evidence if it was not reasonably available at the time the proceeding was heard and determined. Ordinarily, an applicant for leave to adduce fresh evidence must satisfy three tests:[9] (a)Could the parties have obtained the evidence with reasonable diligence for use at the trial? (b)If allowed, would the evidence probably have an important impact on the result of the case? (c)Is the evidence credible?[9]Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404, 408. Dr Cain did not provide any explanation for why he did not provide his fresh evidence at the original hearing. The onus is always upon Dr Cain to present his case and bring all relevant material and witnesses to the hearing. Dr Cain had an obligation to act in his own best interests, including providing all evidence to support his denials and counter-application at the original hearing:The statutory regime under which QCAT operates places obligations upon parties themselves to take care in their dealings with Tribunal matters, and to act in their own best interests. QCAT’s resources for the resolution of disputes are in high demand and serve, as the High Court has recently observed in relation to court resources, “… the public as a whole, not merely the parties to the proceedings”. Finality in litigation is highly desirable, because any further action beyond the hearing can be costly and unnecessarily burdensome on the parties.[10] [10]Creek v Raine & Horne Mossman [2011] QCATA 226, [13], citing with approval Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175, 217. This alone is sufficient to not allow the fresh evidence. However, even if the fresh evidence were admitted into evidence, it has little evidential weight and is unlikely to affect the outcome of the case. The photographs are not dated. The quotes are not proof of actual loss.[11] The correspondence post-dates the tenancy. [11]Olindaridge v Tracey [2015] QCATA 175.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.