Egan v Narasimhan - [2022] QCATA 74

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION

Egan v Narasimhan [2022] QCATA 074

PARTIES: ANTHONY EGAN

(applicant)

v

SATHYA NARASIMHAN

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL168-21

MATTER TYPE:

Residential tenancy matters

DELIVERED ON:

6 June 2022

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr J R Forbes

ORDERS:

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – RESIDENTIAL TENANCY DISPUTE – where sub-tenancy – where sub-tenant unlawfully evicted – where sub-tenant claims refund of rent overpaid and bond improperly retained by lessor – where lessor claims right to retain bond for breaches of agreement – where lessor fails to prove breaches – where sub-tenant awarded return of bond and rent overpaid – where lessor seeks leave to appeal – where application for leave dismissed

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32, s 61, s 143
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 12, s 419, s 420, Second schedule
4Walls Ltd t/a Compass Qld v Kjaer-Olsen [2014] QCATA 278

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission [1990] HCA 47;(1990) 171 CLR 167

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175

Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139

Cornell v Henderson [2013] QCATA 1

Dept of Housing and Public Works v Roesen [2014] QCAT 55
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472

Drew v Bundaberg Regional Council [2011] QCA 359

Felton & Anor v Raine and Horne Real Estate [2011] QCATA 330
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
KM Shaw, Estate of v Waddell [2014] QCAT 155

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

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41

Reihana v Beenleigh Show Society [2019] QCATA 91
Sali v SPC Limited (1993) 67 ALJR 841http://
The Pot Man Pty Ltd v Reaoch [2011] QCATA 318

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

In 2020 the applicant (`Egan’) was tenant of a home unit at Lawson Street Southport. From 4 June 2020 to 27 August 2020 Egan shared the unit with the respondent (`Narasimhan’).[1] Narasimhan’s occupancy was subject to a wholly oral agreement between the parties.[2] According to the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (`RTA’) it is permissible to make a tenancy agreement that is undocumented.[3]
[1]Transcript of hearing 15 June 2021 (`T’) page 27 lines 30-32.
[2]T page 14 line 23, page 27 line 1.
[3]RTA s 12(3)(a), s 61(6)(b).
Effectively, as the tribunal found, Narasimhan was a sub-lessee from Egan.[4] Under their agreement Narasimhan paid a bond of $1,200[5] and rent at the rate of $300 per week in advance.[6] No receipts were given[7] and no ledger was kept.[8]
[4]T page 12 line 44,…

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 Egan v Narasimhan 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: [2022] QCATA 74
Decision Date: 6 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Egan v Narasimhan, the matter before the court involved a dispute between the appellant, Narasimhan, and the respondent, Egan. The dispute arose out of a residential tenancy arrangement where Egan was a sub-tenant under a primary lease held by the appellant. The crux of the dispute was whether the sub-tenant had been unlawfully evicted and whether the sub-tenant was entitled to a refund of overpaid rent and the return of their bond, which the lessor had improperly retained.

The primary legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the sub-tenant was lawfully evicted and, if not, whether the lessor was entitled to retain the bond on the basis of alleged breaches of the sub-tenancy agreement. The court needed to determine if the lessor's actions in retaining the bond and evicting the sub-tenant were justified under the circumstances. Specifically, the court had to consider the evidence presented regarding the sub-tenant's alleged breaches of the agreement and whether these breaches warranted the lessor's actions.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the sub-tenant was not lawfully evicted. Furthermore, the court determined that the lessor had failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the alleged breaches of the sub-tenancy agreement. Consequently, the court ruled that the sub-tenant was entitled to the return of their bond and any overpaid rent. The lessor's application for leave to appeal against this decision was dismissed by the court. This decision effectively upheld the lower court's findings and rejected the lessor's attempt to challenge the outcome on appeal.

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	Egan v Narasimhan [2022] QCATA 074
PARTIES:	ANTHONY EGAN
(applicant)
v
SATHYA NARASIMHAN
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO:	APL168-21
MATTER TYPE:	Residential tenancy matters
DELIVERED ON:	6 June 2022
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Dr J R Forbes
ORDERS:	The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – RESIDENTIAL TENANCY DISPUTE – where sub-tenancy – where sub-tenant unlawfully evicted – where sub-tenant claims refund of rent overpaid and bond improperly retained by lessor – where lessor claims right to retain bond for breaches of agreement – where lessor fails to prove breaches – where sub-tenant awarded return of bond and rent overpaid – where lessor seeks leave to appeal – where application for leave dismissed Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32, s 61, s 143 Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 12, s 419, s 420, Second schedule 4Walls Ltd t/a Compass Qld v Kjaer-Olsen [2014] QCATA 278 Abalos v Australian Postal Commission [1990] HCA 47;(1990) 171 CLR 167 Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 Cornell v Henderson [2013] QCATA 1 Dept of Housing and Public Works v Roesen [2014] QCAT 55 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Drew v Bundaberg Regional Council [2011] QCA 359 Felton & Anor v Raine and Horne Real Estate [2011] QCATA 330 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 KM Shaw, Estate of v Waddell [2014] QCAT 155 LemongroveServices Pty Ltd trading as Reimer Winter Williamson Lawyers and Anor v Rilroll Pty Ltd and Ors [2019] NSWCA 174 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41 Reihana v Beenleigh Show Society [2019] QCATA 91 Sali v SPC Limited (1993) 67 ALJR 841http:// The Pot Man Pty Ltd v Reaoch [2011] QCATA 318
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)