Gerrard v Emerald Lakes Residential - [2025] QCAT 33

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Gerrard v Emerald Lakes Residential [2025] QCAT 33

PARTIES:

WILLIAM ANTHONY GERRARD

(applicant)

v

EMERALD LAKES RESIDENTIAL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL111-24

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT24/24 (Southport)

MATTER TYPE:

Residential tenancy matters

DELIVERED ON:

15 January 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Goodman

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where the evidence was capable of supporting the conclusions reached by the adjudicator – where leave to appeal refused

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld), s 143

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Cougar Air Pty Ltd v Sankarayya [2015] QCATA 98
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Hempel & Anor v Richardson & Wrench Hervey Bay [2018] QCATA 170

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS & Anor (2010) 240 CLR 611

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicant is a former tenant who is seeking the refund of money from the respondent, an agent which formerly managed his rental property on behalf of the owners.
The applicant’s application was heard and determined by an adjudicator on 19 February 2024, when his application was dismissed.
The applicant has applied for leave to appeal,[1] and, if successful, to appeal against the adjudicator’s decision. This is the decision in relation to the leave to appeal application.
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 143.
In considering whether to grant leave to appeal, the Appeal Tribunal considers whether:
(a)there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision;[2]
(b)there is a reasonable prospect that the appellant will obtain substantive relief;[3] and whether;
(c)leave is needed to correct a substantial injustice caused by the error;[4] or
(d)there is a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage.[5]
[2]QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[3]Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232, 2.
[4]QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[5]Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388, 389; McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577, 577, 580.
An error of law may occur where a decision maker:
(a)has made a finding of fact without probative evidence to support it, or has drawn an inference which was not reasonably open on the primary facts;[6] or
(b)has made a decision which is manifestly unreasonable by failing to give…

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 Gerrard v Emerald Lakes Residential 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 33
Decision Date: 15 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the applicant, Gerrard, against the respondent, Emerald Lakes Residential. The dispute arose from a minor civil matter, where Gerrard sought to challenge the adjudicator's decision in relation to a building contract. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue before the court was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the adjudicator's conclusions. The applicant argued that the adjudicator had made errors in the assessment of the evidence and the application of the law, leading to an unfair outcome. The court was required to determine whether the appeal should be granted and if the adjudicator's decision was legally sound.

The court examined the evidence and the adjudicator's reasoning, concluding that the evidence was indeed capable of supporting the conclusions reached. The court found that the adjudicator had properly considered the relevant factors and applied the law correctly. The applicant's arguments did not demonstrate that the adjudicator had made any errors of law or fact that would warrant setting aside the decision. The court held that the adjudicator's decision was not unreasonable or unjust, and that the appeal did not present a case of significant public importance or a question of law of general public importance. As such, the court found that the appeal should not proceed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Given the court's findings, it determined that the adjudicator's decision should stand. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusions reached, and that the applicant had not demonstrated any grounds for setting aside the decision. Consequently, the applicant's appeal was dismissed, and the court refused leave to appeal. The orders of the court were that leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal is refused.

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.