Dapontes v Jarrett - [2024] QCATA 136

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Dapontes v Jarrett [2024] QCATA 136

PARTIES:

ALEXANDRA DAPONTES

(applicant/appellant)

v

ANGELA KRISTEN JARRETT

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL077-22

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCD 02542-21

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

11 November 2024

HEARING DATE:

7 November 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Richard Oliver

ORDERS:

1. Leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – where service of the originating application for compensation in doubt – where application for compensation posted to the tenancy address vacated by the tenant six months before filing and service – where no application for substituted service – where no reasons given for the decision of the Tribunal – whether the Tribunal ought have sent the application for compensation to the respondent’s email address – whether Tribunal’s procedures for service followed – whether failure to give reasons an error of law – whether leave to appeal granted

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 s142(3)(a)(i) and Schedule 3

ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Smalley & Anor [2012] QDC 80.

Carr (dec) in re Union Trustee Co of Australia Ltd v Carr [1942] QWN 18.
Goddard and Lee v Cummings and Hoyer [2014] QCAT 237.
Pacific Petroleum Products Pty Ltd v Malbo (Qld) Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 273.
Rintoul v State of Queensland & Ors [2018] QCA 20.
Terera & Anor v Clifford [2017] QCA 181

Tuck v Kanti-Paul [2024] QCATA 57

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

No appearance

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicant and the respondent entered into a tenancy agreement on 26 November 2020 in respect of a residence at 47 Union Street, Deception Bay (“the tenancy”). There was a dispute about compensation sought by the applicant for outstanding rent and outgoings. Because of the non-payment of rent under the agreement, on 5 March 2021 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a warrant of possession. The Tribunal made an order issuing the warrant on 6 April 2021. There is no dispute that the respondent vacated the premises in or about mid-April 2021.
Much later, on 2 November 2021, the applicant filed an application for compensation (“the compensation application”) claiming compensation from the respondent for arrears of rent, water charges and repairs. The total claim including the filing fee amounted to $6,543.10. The application for compensation came on for hearing in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the Tribunal on 15 March 2023. The compensation application was dismissed because the learned adjudicator who heard the application was not satisfied that the respondent had been served with the originating application.
The applicant has appealed that decision. As this is an appeal from a decision in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction leave to appeal is necessary under section 142(3)(a)(i) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (‘QCAT Act’). Leave to appeal (or permission) will usually only be granted where there is a reasonable argument the…

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 Dapontes v Jarrett

Details

AGLC: Dapontes v Jarrett [2024] QCATA 136
Case: [2024] QCATA 136
Decision Date: 11 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved the parties Dapontes and Jarrett, with the nature of the dispute centering around an appeal against a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The applicant, Dapontes, sought to appeal a QCAT decision denying a claim for compensation. The central legal issues were whether the QCAT correctly exercised its discretion in denying the application for service of an originating application for compensation, and whether there was a failure to provide reasons for the decision, constituting an error of law.

The court began by addressing the issue of service of the originating application for compensation. The application was posted to an address that had been vacated by the respondent, Jarrett, six months prior to the filing of the originating application. The court noted that there was no application for substituted service and no reasons were provided by QCAT for its decision. The applicant argued that QCAT should have sent the application to the respondent's email address and that the Tribunal's procedures for service were not followed. The court considered whether the failure to provide reasons constituted an error of law.

In its reasoning, the court found that the QCAT did not err in denying the application for service. The court held that the Tribunal's procedures for service were not mandatory and, in the circumstances of the case, there was no obligation to send the application to the respondent’s email address. The court further found that the absence of reasons did not amount to an error of law as the decision was still capable of being understood. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but leave to appeal was granted on the basis that the issues raised were of general public importance.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is granted.

2. The 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.