Chambers v Blackford - [2023] QCATA 40

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION Chambers v Blackford & Anor [2023] QCATA 40

PARTIES: CHRISTOPHER JAMES CHAMBERS

(applicant)

v

DAVID BLACKFORD & JULIE BLACKFORD

(respondents)

APPLICATIONNO: APL176-22

MATTERTYPE: Residential tenancy matters

DELIVEREDON: 3 April 2023

HEARINGDATE: 27 March 2023

HEARDAT: Brisbane

DECISIONOF: Dr J R Forbes

ORDERS: The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL –

residential tenancy dispute – application for repayment of bond where bond subject to deductions for unpaid rent – where quantum of deductions disputed - whether increase of rent valid

– whether second increase invalid – where fact finding at first instance discussed – where limitations of leave applications explained

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 3, s 4, s 32

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 70, s 71, s 82, s 91, s 92, s 419

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

Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472

Drew v Bundaberg Regional Council [2011] QCA 330
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Hawkins v Pender Bros Pty Ltd [1990] 1 Qd R 135

JM v QFG and KG [1998] QCA 228

Lemongrove Services Pty Ltd trading as Reimer Winter Williamson Lawyers and Anor v Rilroll Pty Ltd and Ors [2019] NSWCA 174

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS & Another

(2010) 240 CLR 611
Orr v Holmes (1948) 76 CLR 632
Pappas v Meikeljohn’s Accountants [2017] QCATA 60

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41; [2008] QCA 257

Robinson v Corr [2011] QCATA 302
Sali v SPC Limited (1993) 67 ALJR 841
The Pot Man Pty Ltd v Reaoch [2011] QCATA 318
W (an infant), In Re [1971] AC 682

APPEARANCES &REPRESENTATION:

Applicant: Self-represented

Respondent: Stillwater Aust Pty Ltd t/a Century 21 on Duporth

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

From 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2021 (‘the first lease’) the Applicant (‘Chambers’) leased residential premises at Maroochydore (‘the premises’) from David and Julie Blackford (‘Blackfords’).
Upon expiry of the first lease Chambers remained in the premises as a periodic tenant.1
Subsequently Chambers leased the Blackfords’ premises from 28 November 2021 to 28 November 2022 (‘the second lease’).
By virtue of Clause 43(2) of the first and second leases Century 21 on Duporth was authorised to conduct these proceedings on behalf of Blackfords.
According to normal practice Chambers, as tenant, was required to lodge a bond with the Residential Tenancies Authority as security for due observance of the lease. It amounted to $2,200.
In April 2021 the rent was increased from $535 per week to $555, as from 1 July 2021, and in November 2021 it rose from $555 per week to $650, eventually causing friction between the parties. However, Chambers remained in the premises and paid the rising rents.2

Proceedings begin

Residential Tenancies…

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.

Continue reading Chambers v Blackford

Details

AGLC: Chambers v Blackford [2023] QCATA 40
Case: [2023] QCATA 40
Decision Date: 3 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chambers v Blackford involved an application for leave to appeal a decision made in a residential tenancy dispute. The applicant, Chambers, sought a repayment of their bond, which had been subject to deductions for unpaid rent. The central issue was the quantum of these deductions, with Chambers contesting the validity of the rent increases that had been made. Additionally, Chambers argued that a second increase in rent was invalid. The first instance fact-finding was reviewed, and the court discussed the limitations of leave applications. Ultimately, the court found that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed.

The legal issues before the court included whether the rent increases were valid and, consequently, whether the deductions from the bond were justified. The court had to consider the principles governing rent increases in residential tenancy agreements and whether the increases were in line with the legislative framework. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the second rent increase was valid and if it had been properly communicated and agreed upon by the parties. The court also examined the scope of fact-finding in the first instance and the limitations inherent in leave applications.

The court held that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed. It found that the original decision had appropriately considered the validity of the rent increases and the associated deductions from the bond. The court acknowledged that the first instance fact-finding process had been thorough and that the applicant's arguments did not present a compelling case for overturning the earlier decision. The court emphasised that leave to appeal is a discretionary remedy and that it is not granted unless there is a significant question of law or fact that merits further consideration. In this case, the court determined that the arguments presented did not meet the required threshold.

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.

CITATION	Chambers v Blackford & Anor [2023] QCATA 40
PARTIES:	CHRISTOPHER JAMES CHAMBERS
(applicant)
v
DAVID BLACKFORD & JULIE BLACKFORD
(respondents)
APPLICATIONNO:	APL176-22
MATTERTYPE:	Residential tenancy matters
DELIVEREDON:	3 April 2023
HEARINGDATE:	27 March 2023
HEARDAT:	Brisbane
DECISIONOF:	Dr J R Forbes
ORDERS:	The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – residential tenancy dispute – application for repayment of bond where bond subject to deductions for unpaid rent – where quantum of deductions disputed - whether increase of rent valid – whether second increase invalid – where fact finding at first instance discussed – where limitations of leave applications explained Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 3, s 4, s 32 Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 70, s 71, s 82, s 91, s 92, s 419 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 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Drew v Bundaberg Regional Council [2011] QCA 330 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Hawkins v Pender Bros Pty Ltd [1990] 1 Qd R 135 JM v QFG and KG [1998] QCA 228

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS & Another (2010) 240 CLR 611 Orr v Holmes (1948) 76 CLR 632 Pappas v Meikeljohn’s Accountants [2017] QCATA 60 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41; [2008] QCA 257 Robinson v Corr [2011] QCATA 302 Sali v SPC Limited (1993) 67 ALJR 841 The Pot Man Pty Ltd v Reaoch [2011] QCATA 318 W (an infant), In Re [1971] AC 682
APPEARANCES &REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Stillwater Aust Pty Ltd t/a Century 21 on Duporth