Durrand v Scia Pty Ltd

[2022] QCATA 48

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Durrand v Scia Pty Ltd  [2022] QCATA 48

PARTIES:

MICHAEL JAMES DURRAND
JAELENE DURRAND

(applicants/appellants)

v

SCIA PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL073-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT195-19   Rockhampton

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

26 April 2022

HEARING DATE:

19 April 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC

ORDERS:

1.   Application for leave to appeal from the decision of the Tribunal of 11 February 2020 dismissed. 

CATCHWORDS:

LANDLORD AND TENANT – RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES LEGISLATION – OBLIGATIONS, PROHIBITED MATTERS AND PROTECTION FOR LESSEES – OTHER MATTERS – cleaning of premises and pest control treatment on vacating premises – whether needed – whether costs reasonable – whether findings at first instance not reasonably open on the evidence – leave to appeal refused

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 142(3)(a)(i)

Craig v Mark Kelada Auto Sellers [2016] QCATA 48
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Irving v Pfingst [2021] QCA 280

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicants:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr and Mrs Durrand, to whom I shall refer as the appellants, were formerly tenants of a house managed for the owner by the respondent, Scia Pty Ltd, which carried on business under the name Cooke and Associates Property Agents.[1]  After the tenancy ended, the bond was returned to the appellants, but the respondent as agent brought a claim in the Tribunal seeking compensation of $5,062.45 for breach of the tenancy agreement.  At the conclusion of a hearing on 11 February 2020 a Member[2] decided that the appellants pay the respondent $2,160.50 within twenty-eight days.  The appellants seek leave to appeal from that decision.

   [1]The company did so as trustee of a trading trust. 

   [2]A Magistrate sitting as a Member under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“the QCAT Act”) s 171(2).

2. Because this matter was a minor civil dispute, leave is required to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal.[3]  As a general proposition, when leave to appeal is required, it will be granted only where there is a reasonable argument that the decision was attended by error and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice caused by that error, or where the appeal raises a question of general importance upon which further argument and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal would be to the public advantage.[4] In deciding whether grounds for leave to appeal have been shown, it is relevant to consider that the proceeding was a minor civil dispute, and the obligation on the Tribunal was to make orders it considered to be fair and equitable to the parties to the proceeding in order to resolve the dispute: the QCAT Act s 13(1). The Tribunal was also required to comply with the QCAT Act s 28 and s 29. An Appeal Tribunal will not usually disturb findings of fact on appeal if the evidence is capable of supporting the finding, and it is not contrary to compelling inferences.[5]

   [3]The QCAT Act