LeJ v RCC - [2024] QCATA 94

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

LEJ & Anor v RCC [2024] QCATA 94

PARTIES:

LEJ & MAA

(applicant/appellant)

v

RCC

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL283-22

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCD 1648/21

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

4 September 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the Papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Richard Oliver

ORDERS:

1. Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – JURISDICTION – LEAVE TO APPEAL – PRELIMINARY MATTER – where respondent commenced a minor civil dispute proceeding claiming compensation and other relief under a tenancy agreement – where contested hearing – where application for leave to appeal – whether leave to appeal should be granted be decided as a preliminary matter – whether error of law or fact.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, s 142(3)(a)(i)

Crouch & Crouch Pty Ltd t/a Ray White Sherwood v Leadbitt [2022] QCATA 63.

Lee v Lee & RACQ Insurance Ltd [2019[ HCA 28.
Pinehurst Nominees Pty Ltd v Coeur De Lion Investments Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 314.
Rintoul v State of Queensland & Ors [2018] QCA 20.
Robinson Helicopter Company v McDermott [2016] HCA 22.
Royce v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General)

Terera & Anor v Clifford [2017] QCA 181

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 26 September 2022 the appellants filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal from a decision made in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the Tribunal on 8 August 2022. That decision related to a residential tenancy dispute between the appellants as tenants and the respondent as the agent for the owner of the rental premises.
The initial claim by the appellants was for the return of the bond of $1,440.00, overpayment in rent (described as stolen rent) and $25,000.00 for compensation due to the condition of the tenancy, damage to their vehicle and other inconveniences. There were interlocutory skirmishes before the final hearing on 23 May 2022. The hearing was on 8 April 2022, but the claims made in the material filed were in somewhat of a disarray and difficult to follow. The Tribunal directed the appellants to file a schedule of claims with comments in support of each claim, which was done.[1] The schedule did clarify the issues to some extent. The learned adjudicator commented that despite its shortcomings, she said “we’ll work through it”.[2] The respondent also filed a response to the schedule.
[1]Typically referred to as a type of Scott’s Schedule.
[2]Transcript page 2 line 30.
At the hearing both parties, particularly the appellants, were given a further opportunity to put forward their respective positions. The transcript of evidence[3] records that the appellants gave evidence about all relevant issues and they were discussed in some detail in addition to the material filed in the proceeding. In…

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 LeJ v RCC

Details

AGLC: LeJ v RCC [2024] QCATA 94
Case: [2024] QCATA 94
Decision Date: 4 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

LeJ, the appellant, brought an appeal against a decision of RCC, the respondent, who was the original respondent in a minor civil dispute proceeding. The dispute arose under a tenancy agreement, with the respondent claiming compensation and other relief. After a contested hearing, the respondent was granted certain relief, leading the appellant to seek leave to appeal. The central issue before the court was whether the leave to appeal should be granted as a preliminary matter, particularly if there was an error of law or fact that warranted such an appeal.

The court examined the principles governing appeals and new trials, focusing on the right of appeal, jurisdiction, and the need for leave to appeal. It considered whether the appeal raised a significant question of law or if there was an error of fact that necessitated a review by a higher court. The court also evaluated the circumstances under which leave to appeal should be granted, including the necessity of determining the appeal as a preliminary matter. Ultimately, the court concluded that the appeal did not meet the threshold for leave to be granted, as it did not involve a substantial question of law or a significant error of fact.

Consequently, the court decided that the appellant's application for leave to appeal should be refused. This decision was based on the court's assessment that the appeal did not present a compelling case for a higher court to review the original decision. The court's reasoning underscored the stringent criteria for granting leave to appeal, emphasising the importance of ensuring that appeals are only entertained when they involve substantial legal or factual issues. Therefore, the court upheld the original decision, and the appeal was dismissed without proceeding to the merits.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is 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.