Jacobs v Karagianis - [2016] QCATA 153

CITATION:

Jacobs v Karagianis [2016] QCATA 153

PARTIES:	Alexandra Jacobs (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Archilleas Karagianis Lazaros Karagianis (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL202 -16

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Stilgoe OAM

DELIVERED ON:

17 October 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – LANDLORD AND TENANT – RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES LEGISLATION – OBLIGATIONS, PROHIBIED MATTERS AND PROTECTION FOR LESSEES – RENTAL BONDS AND SECURITY DEPOSITS where tenant left premises – where no formal notice of termination or notice to leave – where tenant kept paying rent for co-tenant – where tenancy terminated – where claim for compensation – where tribunal found both tenants liable for compensation - whether grounds for leave to appeal

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 310, s 311

Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1
Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

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

Alexandra Jacobs and her then partner Bam Bentley rented a home from Lazaros Karagianis and a number of his family members. The tenancy started on 29 March 2014. Ms Jacobs left the tenancy in August 2014. The lessors terminated Mr Bentley’s tenancy in May 2015.
The lessors filed an application for compensation agianst both Ms Jacobs and Mr Bentley. The tribunal ordered that they were jointly liable for compensation of $9,967.45 and Mr Bentley was liable for a further $2,211.86.
Ms Jacobs wants 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 Jacobs says the tribunal did not give enough consideration to the abusive relationship she had with Mr Bentley, the reasons she left so suddenly, and a number of other circumstances resulting in her not taking precise formal steps to remove herself from the lease. She says that, had she applied for a domestic violence order, the decision would have been different but ‘too often women are scared to involve police and they are ultimately punished for being scared.’
The tribunal clearly set out what was required for a termination of a tenancy; that is, an agreement between the parties or a notice to leave.[3] Ms Jacobs told the tribunal that she thought her email in August was a notice to leave.[4] The tribunal pointed out that it was not, in fact, a notice to leave under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming…

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 Jacobs v Karagianis

Details

AGLC: Jacobs v Karagianis [2016] QCATA 153
Case: [2016] QCATA 153
Decision Date: 17 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the applicant, Jacobs, against the respondent, Karagianis, in relation to a dispute concerning the residential tenancy of a property. The case was initially heard and determined by the Residential Tenancies Tribunal (RTT), and Jacobs now seeks leave to appeal the tribunal's decision to the Supreme Court. The dispute primarily revolves around the obligations and liabilities of the tenants under the relevant residential tenancy legislation, specifically concerning rental bonds and security deposits.

The legal issues at the heart of this appeal pertain to the interpretation and application of the residential tenancy legislation, particularly regarding the obligations of tenants when a tenancy ends and whether the tribunal correctly found both tenants liable for compensation. The central question was whether the tribunal had erred in its findings, particularly concerning the lack of formal notice of termination or notice to leave, and whether these errors constituted grounds for leave to appeal.

The court considered the arguments presented by Jacobs, focusing on the lack of formal notice of termination or notice to leave, and whether these factors warranted a departure from the tribunal's decision. The court found that the tribunal had correctly applied the relevant provisions of the residential tenancy legislation and that the tribunal's findings were not erroneous. Consequently, the court held that there were no grounds for leave to appeal the tribunal's decision. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

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.