Hardie v Bryson - [2013] QCATA 250

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…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hardie v Bryson

Details

AGLC: Hardie v Bryson [2013] QCATA 250
Case: [2013] QCATA 250
Decision Date: 19 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

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.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal 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.