Grebeneva & Anor v Ray White Deception Bay & Ors

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Grebeneva & Anor v Ray White Deception Bay & Ors [2024] QCATA 16

PARTIES:

ZINAIDA GREBENEVA
(FIRST APPLICANT/APPELLANT)

AND

PETER JOHN WOOD

(second applicant/appellant)

v

RAY WHITE DECEPTION BAY

(first respondent)

And

TREVOR PICKET

(second respondent)

And

MARGARET TSENG

(third respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL261-23

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT84-23 (Redcliffe)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

6 February 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lember

ORDERS:

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL THAT:

1.     Leave to appeal granted.

2.     Appeal allowed.

3.     The decision of 7 August 2023 is set aside.

4.     The application in MCDT84/23 (Redcliffe) (but not the counter application) is remitted to the minor civil dispute jurisdiction for rehearing.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – where application in a residential tenancy dispute grounded upon section 71 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) was filed within thirty days of a new tenancy agreement being signed – where application dismissed in error as having been filed out of time – where tribunal erred in applying incorrect section of the Act

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32, s 143, Sch 3

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 71, s 92, s 415, s 416, s 417

Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232

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

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

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

What is this application about?

1. On 13 June 2023 the applicants filed an application in a residential tenancy dispute (MCDT84/23 - Redcliffe) against the managing agents and owners of the property they occupied as tenants seeking orders that the respondents pay them $1,002,004.79 in compensation for various complaints made against the respondents, including for health degradation, distress, and life quality reduction. It is trite to say that the claims largely lacked merit and well exceeded the tribunal’s monetary jurisdictional limit of $25,000.[1]

   [1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act), Schedule 3.

2. Within the application, however, a claim objecting to the most recent rent increase, in respect of which the applicants sought relief under section 71 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accomodation Act 2008 (Qld) (‘RTRAA’).  This claim was considered but dismissed on the grounds that the applicants had filed their application out of time. 

3. In so deciding, the learned Adjudicator applied the time limit set out in section 92 of the RTRAA, rather than that set out in section 71.

4. A counter application brought by the respondents was also dismissed, however, was because the counter application filed, in…