| CITATION: | Liebech v Rent My Property & Ors [2015] QCAT 378 |
| PARTIES: | David Liebech Catherine Liebech (Applicants) |
| v | |
| Rent My Property Matthew Harvey Simon Hourigan Aaron Lawton Alexandra Lawton Connor McDonald Luka Weti (Respondents) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDT2863-14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Residential tenancy matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 31 July 2015 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Mr Martin, Justice of the Peace (Presiding) |
| DELIVERED ON: | 18 September 2015 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Leave is granted for Mrs. McDonald to represent Mr. McDonald. 2. The respondents, save for Rent My Property, pay the applicants the sum of $4,085.34 within 28 days of the date of this order. | ||
| CATCHWORDS: | Residential tenancy matter - non-provision of Entry and Exit Condition Reports - non-provision of General Tenancy Agreement – whether occupants are tenants if not included on the Tenancy Agreement – apportionment of compensation between tenants – whether fair wear and tear - Australian Tax Office depreciation rates – when Tenancy Agreement ends – quantifying betterment – joint and several obligations of tenants – duty to mitigate loss or expense. Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) ss 13, 277, 362, 420(1)(e) Griffin v Gini [2011] QCATA 325 | ||
APPEARANCES:
| APPLICANTS: | David Liebech (in person) |
| RESPONDENTS: | Rent My Property (no appearance) Mr. Matthew Harvey (no appearance) Mr. Simon Hourigan (in person) Mr. Aaron Lawton (in person) Ms. Alexander Lawton (in person) Mr. Connor McDonald (represented by Mrs. McDonald) Mr. Luke Weti (no appearance) |
REPRESENTATIVES:
| RESPONDENT: | By consent of the parties present and by leave of the Tribunal, Mr. McDonald was represented by his mother, Mrs. McDonald. |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
By application filed on 28 November 2014, the applicants sought that the respondents pay compensation in the sum of $4,163.80 as follows:
a) keys and garage remotes in the sum of $551.38;
b) internal and external bond clean in the sum of $1,200.00;
c) repairs and maintenance in the sum of $295.00;
d) replacement of front door bell, outside light fittings, light globes and smoke alarm in the sum of $68.86;
e) garden cleanup in the sum of $597.50;
f) replacement bench and vanity tops in the sum of $1,730.00, and
g) rental compensation in the sum of $3,594.00.
The sum of the above is $8,036.74. The applicants’ insurer, APIA Insurance, has paid them $551.38 for the replacement of keys and garage remotes, leaving a residue of $7,485.36. The Residential Tenancies Authority (“the Authority”) has paid $2,680.00 rental bond to the applicants. This leaves a residue of $4,805.36. It is agreed between the parties that Mr. McDonald has paid the applicants the sum of $641.56. This leaves a residue of $4,163.80.
The applicants are seeking compensation for those sums listed at [1] b) to [1] g) above. They are also seeking compensation for rent…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Liebech v Rent My Property 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2015] QCAT 378
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine the nature of the tenancy agreement and whether the tenants were indeed tenants if they were not included on the Tenancy Agreement. The court also had to consider the apportionment of compensation between the tenants, the application of Australian Tax Office depreciation rates, and the apportionment of betterment. Furthermore, the court needed to decide whether the respondents had a duty to mitigate their loss or expense.
The court found that the tenants were indeed tenants even if they were not included on the Tenancy Agreement. The court ruled that the compensation should be apportioned between the tenants and determined the application of Australian Tax Office depreciation rates. The court found that the apportionment of betterment was not appropriate and that the respondents had a duty to mitigate their loss or expense. The court granted Mrs. McDonald leave to represent Mr. McDonald and ordered the respondents, save for Rent My Property, to pay the applicants the sum of $4,085.34 within 28 days of the date of this order.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave is granted for Mrs. McDonald to represent Mr. McDonald.
2. The respondents, save for Rent My Property, pay the applicants the sum of $4,085.34 within 28 days of the date of this order.
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.