Hardie v Bryson

CITATION:

Hardie v Bryson [2013] QCATA 250

PARTIES:	Noel John Hardie (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Alan Bryson (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL180-13

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Alan Wilson, President

DELIVERED ON:

19 September 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – RESIDENTIAL TENANCY – where the respondent entered into a tenancy agreement with the applicant – where the respondent commenced proceedings against the applicant in the Tribunal for damage to the premises – where the Tribunal found the applicant had satisfied part of its claim and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant a fixed sum – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal that decision – whether leave to appeal should be granted

Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513, cited
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232, cited
QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41, cited

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Hardie owned residential premises at Bowen. He rented them to Mr Bryson under a tenancy agreement pursuant to the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld). He brought proceedings against the tenant claiming almost $19,000 for alleged damage to the premises.
The proceedings were heard and determined in QCAT’s minor civil disputes jurisdiction by a Magistrate, sitting as a QCAT Member at Bowen on 26 March 2013. Both parties were legally represented. At the conclusion of the hearing the learned Magistrate ordered that Mr Bryson should pay Mr Hardie $1,808. The Residential Tenancies Authority held a bond of $1,400 and the Magistrate also ordered that the bond be paid to Mr Hardie in part satisfaction of the award.
Mr Hardie seeks leave to appeal that decision. The QCAT Appeal Tribunal ordered that his application for leave to appeal (and the appeal, if leave is granted) would be heard and determined on the papers – i.e. by written submissions from the parties. They have filed, and exchanged, submissions.
Leave to appeal is a necessary prerequisite to an appeal because the original proceedings were in the Tribunal’s Minor Civil Disputes jurisdiction.[1] Leave will be only granted where there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision,[2] and a reasonable prospect that the applicant would obtain further substantive relief on appeal.[3] The question which is often asked in applications for leave to appeal is this: is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant, caused by some error?[4]
[1]QCAT Act s 142(3)(a)(i).
[2]QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41 at 46.
[3]Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 at [13].
[4]QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41 at 46.
Mr Hardie’s written submissions are comprised of over 30 unnumbered pages which are, with respect, a little difficult to follow. The gist of his arguments appears to be that he was not awarded some items of compensation for which he claimed, including lost rent, and cleaning charges. He also, in his submissions, refers to the fact that the learned Magistrate said that he (the Magistrate) had to balance the evidence of one person against another, from which it may be inferred that Mr Hardie believes the wrong choice was made and that his evidence should have been accepted and preferred.
Evidence and submissions at the hearing took over four hours with witnesses being called by both sides and each being legally represented. Mr Hardie complains that his legal representative did not provide the Tribunal with a building inspector’s report but there is nothing to suggest the report was not available for tender as an exhibit, if necessary.
Doing the best I can with Mr Hardie’s submissions, it appears that his application for leave to appeal is based entirely upon what, he says, are incorrect findings of fact made by the learned Magistrate. That is not a compelling ground for a grant of leave. Findings of fact by a Tribunal will not usually be disturbed on appeal if the facts inferred by the Tribunal, upon which its findings are based, are capable of supporting its conclusions and there is evidence of supporting any inferences underlining it.
It is not enough that the Appeal Tribunal might have come to a different view; rather, an appellant must be able to show that there has been a mistake in assessing the factual evidence (e.g., a failure to take some relevant evidence into account) before the Appeal Tribunal can interfere.[5] The Appeal Tribunal will only interfere in cases of this kind if the conclusions reached in the Tribunal are contrary to compelling inferences from the evidence in the case.
[5]Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513.
Mr Hardie’s submissions are not at all persuasive that any error of that kind was made by the learned Magistrate. Nothing in his submissions illustrates, or forcefully suggests or persuades, that the learned Magistrate did not have evidence justifying his conclusions; or, that the evidence and the weight of evidence made those conclusions unreasonable.
It is appreciated that Mr Hardie does not appear to have had the benefit of legal advice or assistance with his appeal submissions, but the need to address questions of this kind and frame submissions directly towards them is readily available through information published by QCAT itself. On the QCAT website there are links to information about appeals in minor civil disputes cases, including a fact sheet which makes it clear that the Appeal Tribunal will not generally give leave to appeal if the only reason for seeking leave is because the Tribunal preferred the evidence of another party, or relied on evidence with which the applicant does not agree.
Nothing, with respect, in Mr Hardie’s submissions is persuasive that this is a case in which a grant of appeal is warranted, or necessary. For the sake of completeness it should also be observed that nothing in his submissions, or the manner and conduct of the hearing before the learned Magistrate, suggests that there has been any substantial injustice or that a question of general importance arises which should be determined by the Appeal Tribunal.
For these reasons, the application for leave to appeal must be refused.

The case of Hardie v Bryson involved a dispute between a tenant, Hardie, and a landlord, Bryson, over damage to a residential property. Bryson had entered into a tenancy agreement with Hardie and subsequently commenced proceedings against him in the Tribunal, alleging damage to the premises. The Tribunal found that Hardie had indeed caused some damage, but also that Bryson had not mitigated the loss. The Tribunal ordered Bryson to pay Hardie a fixed sum, and Hardie sought leave to appeal this decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Hardie was entitled to appeal the Tribunal's decision. The court had to determine if the appeal had prospects of success and if it was in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal. The court considered the merits of the appeal, the potential for error in the Tribunal's decision, and the impact of the appeal on the parties.

The court found that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success as the Tribunal's decision was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence. The court also noted that the appeal was unlikely to advance the cause of justice, given that the amount in dispute was relatively minor. Consequently, the court refused Hardie's application for leave to appeal. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the Tribunal's findings and the potential impact of the appeal on the parties involved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established