Harcourts Rental Management Solutions v Vio

Link copied
Case Copied 5 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Harcourts Rental Management Solutions & Anor v Vio & Anor [2020] QCATA 56

PARTIES: HARCOURTS RENTAL MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

(first applicant\appellant)

CHRISTINA LOWE

(second applicant\appellant)

v

CAROLINA VIO

(first respondent)

PATRICK CARMON

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL206-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT140/19 (Pine Rivers)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

23 April 2020

HEARING DATE:

6 March 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Richard Oliver

ORDERS:

Application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – APPLICATION FOR AND EXTENSION OF TIME – where applicant failed to attend the original hearing of the residential tenancy dispute – where  application for leave to appeal or appeal sought a re-heating – whether grounds for leave to appeal – whether the primary decision was open on the evidence before the  of the original decision maker – where no error of law identified – where no grounds to grant leave to appeal.

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

Terera & Anor v Clifford [2017] QCA 181;

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294, [3].

Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39.

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

  1. On 23 April 2019 Harcourts Rental Management Solutions (the Applicant) filed an Application for a Minor Civil Dispute – Residential Tenancy Dispute in the Tribunal claiming a total of $2,293.61 from the respondents who were the tenants of premises at North Lakes in Brisbane. There was a rental bond of $2,340 lodged with the Residential Tenancy Authority. In the application, the applicant set out the particulars of the claim being:

    •       Carpet cleaning - $100;

    •       Rent arrears - $500

    •       Flyscreen replacement - $176

    •       Gardening - $280

    •       Plumbing repairs - $121

  2. The basis for the rental arrears claim was particularised in the application as follows:

    Upon being issued a Notice to Leave expiring 13 January 2019, the tenant failed to vacate the home. The lessor kindly gave an additional weeks extension however the tenants again did not vacate. Upon submitting an application to QCAT, the tenants vacated on 25.02.2019 just prior to the QCAT hearing being held. The tenant paid up to including 07.02.2019 however ceased all payments from then.

  3. The application came on for hearing in the Tribunal on 30 July 2019 but the applicant failed to attend the hearing. The learned Adjudicator satisfied herself from the file that Notice of Hearing had been given the applicant notice and then proceeded to hear the application.

  4. The respondents were represented by Ms Vio in person who then put forward the respondents’ position with respect to the claims made by the applicant. She made concessions about monies claimed in the application which included the cost of replacement of flyscreens, gardening and water charges totalling $722.95.

  5. During the course of the hearing, Ms Vio was expressly…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Harcourts Rental Management Solutions v Vio 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
[2020] QCATA 56
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Harcourts Rental Management Solutions sought an appeal against a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) which dismissed their application for an extension of time to file an application for an order concerning a residential tenancy dispute. The Tribunal had dismissed the application for an extension of time as the applicant had failed to attend the original hearing of the dispute. Harcourts submitted that the application for leave to appeal was seeking a re-hearing of the matter, and that the Tribunal had erred in its approach to the application for an extension of time.

The court considered whether there were grounds for leave to appeal and whether the primary decision was open on the evidence before the original decision maker. The court found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the primary decision was open on the evidence before the Tribunal, or that there was any error of law that warranted the appeal. The court concluded that there were no grounds to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any error of law or any grounds for leave to appeal. The court found that the primary decision was open on the evidence before the Tribunal and that there were no grounds to grant leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused.

No orders were made in relation to the appeal, and the decision of the QCAT dismissing the application for an extension of time to file an application for an order concerning a residential tenancy dispute remained in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for 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.