Hessey-Tenny v Jones

In the matter of Hessey-Tenny v Jones, the tenants, the applicants, sought relief from the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) regarding their tenancy of a property. They alleged unresolved sewage issues, non-functioning toilets, and other ongoing faults. After issuing a notice to remedy the breaches, they notified the landlord of their intention to vacate and subsequently sought to agree to a termination of the tenancy without further claims. The applicants sought orders under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (RTRAA) for various reliefs, while the landlord filed a counter-application. The applicants' application was dismissed, and the landlord's counter-application was partially allowed. The applicants then sought leave to appeal the Tribunal’s decision to the Appeal Tribunal of QCAT.

The appeal raised several issues, including whether the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of section 416 of the RTRAA, whether the landlord’s claims were out of time, and whether the Tribunal erred in fact regarding the applicants’ liability for a pump failure and septic tank misuse. Additionally, the applicants argued that the Tribunal erred in fact regarding the existence of a mutual termination agreement. The applicants also contended that the Tribunal denied them natural justice and procedural fairness by not providing them with a maintenance report prior to the commencement of the tenancy and by not providing them with copies of a phone conversation transcript and subsequent emails despite their requests.

The Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Tribunal had erred in its factual findings regarding the laundry repair, cabinet rapid, water pump replacement, and the refilling of the water tank. Consequently, the sum awarded to the landlord was reduced, and the landlord was ordered to refund a portion of the amount to the applicants. The Tribunal held that the applicants had not been denied natural justice or procedural fairness, and there was no apprehension of bias on the part of the Tribunal Member. The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The final orders of the Appeal Tribunal were that leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed in respect of certain factual errors, the Tribunal’s decision was amended to reflect the corrected sum owed, and the landlord was ordered to refund a portion of the amount to the applicants. The appeal was dismissed in all other respects.