Kuenstner v Ray White Murrumba Downs - [2014] QCATA 169

CITATION:

Kuenstner & Anor v Ray White Murrumba Downs [2014] QCATA 169

PARTIES:	Hans Kuenstner and Julio Kuenstner (Appellants)
v
Ray White Murrumba Downs (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL573-13

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr J R Forbes, Member

DELIVERED ON:

7 July 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDER MADE:

The application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – RESIENTIAL TENANCY DISPUTE – where claim for landlord’s failure to repair – where statutory notice to repair omitted – where legislation imposes time limit for application to the Tribunal – whether time limit a mandatory condition of jurisdiction – where appellant seeks to introduce additional claim on application for leave to appeal – application refused

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 32, s 142
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 325, s 419

Cameron v Cole (1944) 68 CLR 571

Department of Transport and Main Roads v Hollidge & Anor [2014] QCATA 55

Estate of KM Shaw v Waddell [2014] QCAT 155

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS & Another (2010) 240 CLR 611
Robinson v Corr [2011] QCATA 302
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014
Snell v Morgan [2011] QCATA 316
Thompson and Anor v Jedanhay Pty Ltd [2012[ QCATA 246
W (an infant), In re [1971] AC 682
Watkins v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 535

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

Proceedings to date

In their primary application, the applicants (“the tenants”) sued the respondent (“the lessor”)[1] for return of bond moneys, a refund of rent overpaid, compensation for flooding of a bedroom caused by a leaking shower, and redress for a faulty air conditioner. The latter claim was not pursued on trial.
[1]The respondent stands in the place of the actual lessors, Karl Brian Deecke and Julieanne Renay Schultz, by virtue of the General Tenancy Agreement dated 18 December 2012.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for bond moneys in the amount of $275, and dismissed both the claim for rent allegedly overpaid, and the claim for compensation.[2]
[2]Orders made at Pine Rivers on 6 December 2013.
The Tribunal’s reasons for dismissing the tenants’ claims for rent overpaid and compensation may be shortly stated are as follows:
a) That the claim for rent overpaid was based on a mathematical miscalculation, and in fact no overpayment occurred.[3]
b) That the claim for compensation is barred by failure to comply with a statutory time limit.
[3]Reasons for decision 6 December 2013 page 1 lines 39 – 47, page 2 lines 1 – 7.

Claim not pursued

In their application for leave to appeal[4] the tenants foreshadow the following ground of appeal, namely that they made a ‘

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 Kuenstner v Ray White Murrumba Downs

Details

AGLC: Kuenstner v Ray White Murrumba Downs [2014] QCATA 169
Case: [2014] QCATA 169
Decision Date: 7 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Kuenstner v Ray White Murrumba Downs, the dispute arose from a residential tenancy matter where the tenant, the appellant, claimed that the landlord failed to repair certain issues within the property. The appellant sought compensation for the landlord's failure to repair, however, they had failed to provide the statutory notice to repair as required by the Residential Tenancies Act. The matter was brought before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) and subsequently to the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the time limit imposed by the legislation for making an application to the Tribunal was a mandatory condition of jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the time limit was not a jurisdictional prerequisite and thus the Tribunal had the authority to hear the case despite the delay in filing. The respondent, the landlord, maintained that the time limit was a strict requirement and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The court examined the statutory provisions and concluded that the time limit for making an application to the Tribunal was indeed a mandatory condition of jurisdiction. The court found that the appellant's failure to comply with this statutory requirement meant that the Tribunal did not have the authority to hear the claim. Consequently, the court refused the appellant's application for leave to appeal, holding that the appellant could not introduce an additional claim on the application for leave. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and the consequences of failing to do so.

Orders