Gould v Mazheiko & Gill

The applicant, Gould, was a tenant under the landlords, Mazheiko and Gill. Gould applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) for a reduction in rent or compensation following various complaints about the state of the rental premises. Gould alleged that the premises required carpet cleaning and pest control, that his belongings were damaged, and that the landlords had unlawfully entered the property. QCAT dismissed the application and Gould sought leave to appeal this decision to the Appeal Tribunal of QCAT. Gould argued that QCAT had erred in applying a six-month time limit to the rent reduction regime under section 94 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) and that applications under section 94 of the Act must be made during the tenancy.

The Appeal Tribunal held that the appeal was not frivolous or vexatious and that there was a serious question to be tried in relation to whether QCAT had erred in applying the six-month time limit to the rent reduction regime. The Tribunal found that the proper approach was to determine whether there was a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises and that this was a question of fact and degree. The Tribunal concluded that it was open to QCAT to find that there was no breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment where the landlord had acted promptly to remedy the issues raised by the tenant.

The Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal and found that QCAT had not erred in concluding that there was no breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. The Tribunal held that the tenants had not made out a case for a reduction in rent or compensation. The Tribunal found that the tenants had failed to establish that the landlords had failed to maintain the premises in a good and tenantable condition and that the tenants had not suffered any loss or damage as a result of the landlords' actions. The Tribunal also held that the tenants had not established that the landlords had acted in a manner that was inconsistent with the landlords’ obligations under the Act.