Liebech v Rent My Property

Link copied
Case Copied 13 min read
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)
Mr Carpenter, Justice of the Peace

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

Griffin v Gini [2011] QCATA 325
Cavric Pty Ltd t/a Cavalier Homes Mackay v Cameron [2010] QCATA 90
One Door Property Pty Ltd v Hawthorne [2015] QCATA 58

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANTS:

David Liebech (in person)
Catherine 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. The applicants are seeking compensation for those sums listed at [1] b) to [1] g) above. They are also seeking compensation for rent…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2015] QCAT 378
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Liebech v Rent My Property is a residential tenancy matter involving a dispute between tenants and a property manager. The tenants, Mr. and Mrs. Liebech, are contesting the non-provision of Entry and Exit Condition Reports and the General Tenancy Agreement, and whether they are considered tenants if not included on the Tenancy Agreement. The tenants also argue that the compensation should be apportioned between them and seek clarification on the Australian Tax Office depreciation rates. Additionally, the tenants dispute the apportionment of betterment and the respondents' joint and several obligations.

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.