Coelho De Barcelos v Yamanishi - [2025] QCAT 37

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

COELHO DE BARCELOS & ANOR V YAMANISHI & ANOR [2025] QCAT 37

PARTIES:

ANDRE FELIPE COELHO DE BARCELOS

(applicant)

DEBORA CINTIA DE JESUS CASSIMIRO

(APPLICANT)

v

MIA YAMANISHI

(respondent)

SEIYA YAMAGUCHI

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

Q8697-24

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

29 January 2025

HEARING DATE:

7 November 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Gaffney

ORDERS:

The Residential Tenancies Authority pay the rental bond as follows:

(a)     to Andre Felipe Coelho de Barcelos, $438;

(b)     to Debora Cintia de Jesus Cassimiro, $438;

(c)     to Mia Yamanishi, $1,362;

(d)     to Seiya Yamaguchi, $1,362.

CATCHWORDS:

CIVIL LAW – CIVIL TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – RESIDENTIAL TENANCY DISPUTE – where the parties were cotenants under a fixed term residential tenancy agreement (‘the lease’) – where the Applicants initiated an early termination of the lease other than as provided for under s 277 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (‘the Act’) (a ‘break lease’) – where the Applicants claimed the return of their contribution to the rental bond under s 137 of the Act together with moneys to be deducted from the Respondents’ contribution to the bond – where the Respondents sought the return of their contribution to the bond plus moneys to be deducted from the Applicants’ contribution to the bond – where s 137 applies only where the Tribunal has made an order about payment of a rental bond – whether the source of the Tribunal’s power to make an order about the bond is s 136D or s 430 of the Act – whether an order made under s 430 is to be preferred in the circumstances of the case – whether an order under s 430 can be given effect under s 137 – whether the bond can be used as security for a successful claim between cotenants in light of s 111(1)(a)(ii) of the Act – where the parties exchanged messages prior to the execution of the lease – whether the messages may be taken into account in making an order under s 430 – determination of liability as between the parties for break lease expenses, rent, stress and costs.

Bates v Horsnell [2011] QCATA 329
Capital & Harvest Pty Ltd v Bae [2023] QCATA 94
Fotia v Packer [2010] QCATA 98
Health Ombudsman v du Toit [2024] QCA 235
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355

Smolcic v Ray White Rockhampton [2021] QCATA 136

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A(1)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 13(1), s 100, s 102

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 19(a), s 111(1)(a), s 124, s 135, s 136A(2), s 136B, s 136D, s 137, s 277, s 310, s 416, s 430

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Andre Felipe Coelho de Barcelos, Debora Cintia de Jesus Cassimiro

Respondent:

Mia Yamanishi, Seiya Yamaguchi

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

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 Coelho De Barcelos v Yamanishi 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: [2025] QCAT 37
Decision Date: 29 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Coelho De Barcelos v Yamanishi was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The dispute involved cotenants under a fixed term residential tenancy agreement who had initiated an early termination of the lease, commonly known as a "break lease". The applicants sought the return of their contribution to the rental bond along with deductions from the respondents' contribution. The respondents, in turn, sought the return of their bond contribution plus deductions from the applicants' contribution. The primary legal issue was whether the Tribunal's power to order the payment of a rental bond stemmed from section 136D or section 430 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld). The court also needed to determine if an order under section 430 could be given effect under section 137, and whether the bond could be used as security for a successful claim between cotenants in light of section 111(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Additionally, the court considered whether pre-lease exchange messages could be taken into account when making an order under section 430. The determination of liability for break lease expenses, rent, stress, and costs was also examined.

The Tribunal determined that the power to order the payment of a rental bond was derived from section 430 of the Act. It found that an order under this section could be enforced under section 137. The court held that the bond could serve as security for a successful claim between cotenants, notwithstanding section 111(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Pre-lease exchange messages were deemed admissible and relevant in making an order under section 430. The Tribunal apportioned liability for break lease expenses, rent, stress, and costs between the parties, taking into account the evidence presented.

The Tribunal ordered that the rental bond be paid to the respective parties as follows: Andre Felipe Coelho de Barcelos and Debora Cintia de Jesus Cassimiro each received $438, while Mia Yamanishi and Seiya Yamaguchi each received $1,362. The Residential Tenancies Authority was ordered to pay the amounts specified to the respective parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Residential Tenancies Authority pay the rental bond as follows:

(a) to Andre Felipe Coelho de Barcelos, $438;

(b) to Debora Cintia de Jesus Cassimiro, $438;

(d) to Seiya Yamaguchi, $1,362.

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.