| CITATION: | Cameron v Spalding [2012] QCATA 145 |
| PARTIES: | Kristine Louise Cameron (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| Ian Spalding (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL422-11 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Justice Alan Wilson, President |
| DELIVERED ON: | 16 August 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | Leave to appeal refused. |
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
On 27 July 2010 Ms Cameron entered into a General Tenancy Agreement with Ting Huo under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (RTRA Act). The premises are at Gladstone. The commencing date for the agreement was 27 July 2010, and the tenancy was to cease on 24 January 2011. Subsequently, title to the premises was transferred from Ting Huo to the present Respondent, Mr Spalding.
On 26 November 2010 the parties agreed to extend the tenancy to 25 July 2011.
On 27 June 2011 Ms Cameron filed a Minor Civil Dispute application against Huo (amended to refer to Spalding) claiming $6,144.56, and alleging that the premises were unliveable due to “broken asbestos in walls” threatening her health and that of her 5 children. She also alleged that she had served two notices to remedy the breach[1] without any, or any satisfactory response from her landlord. On 20 June 2011 she served notice of intention to leave,[2] surrendering vacant possession on 27 June 2011.
[1] RTRA Act, s 325.
[2] RTRA Act, s 327.
The details of Ms Cameron’s claim were:
a)Application fee $92.00;
b)Building inspection $143.00;
c)Builder’s film and tape $43.84;
d)Removal expenses (vehicle and trailer hire, petrol) $1,045.72;
e)Rent reduction and inconvenience $3,500;
f)Refund of bond $1,320.
The total claim was for $6,144.56.
On 16 February 2012 Mr Spalding lodged a separate application alleging that the walls…
Continue reading Cameron v Spalding
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Cameron v Spalding [2012] QCATA 145
- Case
- [2012] QCATA 145
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues in this case revolved around whether the tenant was liable for the damage, whether the tenant could recover removal costs, whether compensation for inconvenience was available, whether the QCAT Act section 29 was observed, and whether leave to appeal should be granted. The tenant argued that the damage was caused by a defect in the property and that they were not responsible. They also sought to recover removal costs and claimed compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delay in repairing the damage. The landlord, on the other hand, argued that the tenant was liable for the damage and that the QCAT Act section 29 was not observed.
The Tribunal found that the tenant was liable for the damage to the property as it was caused by their negligence. The Tribunal rejected the tenant's claim for removal costs as the landlord had already incurred these expenses. The Tribunal also found that compensation for inconvenience was not available as it was not a recognized head of damage under the Property Occupations Act. The Tribunal further held that the QCAT Act section 29 was observed and that leave to appeal should be refused. The Tribunal's decision was based on the evidence presented and the applicable law.
In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the tenant was liable for the damage to the property and that the landlord was entitled to compensation for the repair costs. The Tribunal rejected the tenant's claims for removal costs and compensation for inconvenience, and found that the QCAT Act section 29 was observed. The Tribunal refused leave to appeal.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.