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;
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
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
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.
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.
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.
During the course of the hearing, Ms Vio was expressly…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] QCATA 56
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.