Hughes v Garnett - [2017] QCATA 26

CITATION:

Hughes & anor v Garnett [2017] QCATA 26

PARTIES:	Stephanie Hughes Valerie Agnew (Applicants/Appellants)
v
Junko Garnett (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL311-16

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Stilgoe OAM

DELIVERED ON:

17 February 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – LANDLORD AND TENANT – RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES LEGISLATION – OBLIGATIONS, PROHIBITED MATTERS AND PROTECTION FOR LESSEES – OTHER MATTERS – where lessor’s claim for rent accepted by the tribunal – where tenant said tribunal had no jurisdiction - where tenant said lessor’s claim out of time – where tenant said lessor failed to mitigate loss – whether grounds for leave to appeal

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – JURISDICTION – where lessor filed claim for compensation – where tenant said tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain claim – whether grounds for leave to appeal

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – POWERS AND PROCEDURE – where tenant claimed lack of procedural fairness – whether grounds for leave to appeal

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 13, s 142(3)

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 173(2), s 362, s 416, s 417(2), s 419(3)

British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd[1912] AC 673
Castieau v Gubecka [2012] QCAT 644
Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1
Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Harvey v Phillips(1956) 95 CLR 235
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294
R T Company Proprietary Limited v Minister of State for the Interior (1957) 98 CLR 168

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 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Stephanie Hughes and Valerie Agnew rented a property from Junko Garnett. At the end of the tenancy, Ms Garnett applied for compensation for unpaid rent and break lease re-letting costs. The tribunal ordered, apparently by consent, that Ms Hughes and Ms Agnew pay Ms Garnett $2,231.50 by weekly payments of $50.
Ms Hughes and Ms Agnew want to appeal that decision. Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.[1] Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.[2]
[1]QCAT Act, s 142(3)(a)(i).
[2]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 at [3].
Ms Hughes and Ms Agnew say the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the proceeding because s 416 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (RTRA Act),…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hughes v Garnett 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: [2017] QCATA 26
Decision Date: 17 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hughes v Garnett involved a dispute between a lessor and a tenant, with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) at the centre of the controversy. The lessor, Hughes, had filed a claim for unpaid rent and compensation against the tenant, Garnett, who argued that QCAT lacked jurisdiction over the matter, that the claim was out of time, and that the lessor had failed to mitigate loss. Garnett further contended that the tribunal had not treated him fairly in the proceedings. The appeal centred on whether there were grounds for granting leave to appeal the tribunal’s decision in favour of Hughes.

The primary legal issues in this case were whether QCAT had the jurisdiction to hear Hughes' claim, whether the claim was timely, whether Hughes had adequately mitigated their losses, and whether Garnett had been afforded procedural fairness by QCAT. The court needed to determine if these issues constituted valid grounds for appeal and if the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success.

In evaluating the grounds for leave to appeal, the court closely examined the arguments presented by Garnett. It considered whether the tribunal had indeed exceeded its jurisdiction, whether the claim was indeed time-barred, whether there was a failure to mitigate, and whether procedural fairness was compromised. The court found that the tribunal's decision was adequately reasoned and supported by the evidence presented. The tribunal had correctly interpreted its jurisdiction, determined that the claim was not time-barred, found that Hughes had not failed to mitigate, and confirmed procedural fairness was observed. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not to have a reasonable prospect of success.

Accordingly, the court refused leave to appeal, upholding the tribunal's decision in favour of Hughes. The tribunal's findings on jurisdiction, timeliness, mitigation, and procedural fairness were all upheld, and no grounds for appeal were identified. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original decision of QCAT was maintained.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. 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.