LJ Hooker Stafford v Hagan

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

LJ Hooker Stafford v Hagan [2019] QCATA 161

PARTIES:

LJ HOOKER STAFFORD

(appellant)

v

DOUGLAS HAGAN

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL028-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT 401/18 (Brisbane)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

18 November 2019

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Gordon

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal is refused.  This means that the appeal fails.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN NO APPEAL LIES – where tenants damaged the wooden floor of a house – where it is said the Justices of the Peace applied incorrect principles when assessing the award of compensation to the owners – whether any reasonably arguable grounds of appeal

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 362

Stockdale & Leggo v Gordon [2017] QCATA 112

REPRESENTATION:
Appellant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented
APPEARANCES:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. LJ Hooker Stafford bring this appeal on behalf of the owners of a house in Wavell Heights which had been tenanted by Douglas and Paula Hagan.  The dispute is about the extent to which monies representing the rental bond paid by the tenants should be retained by the owners of the house following the ending of the tenancy.

2. The application to the tribunal for the return of the rental bond monies was made by Douglas Hagan alone.[1]  The matter came before a tribunal panel comprised of two Justices of the Peace.  The Appeal Tribunal has obtained a transcript of the tribunal hearing and so it is possible to see what happened.  At the tribunal hearing, Mr Hagan was on the telephone from Canada, and LJ Hooker represented the owners as their agents.

   [1]It is better practice for all tenants to be applicants in such proceedings to ensure that they are bound by the outcome.  If they are not joined as applicants they may be joined as respondents, subject to the need for procedural fairness.

3. The parties were in dispute about what damage had been caused by the tenants to the wooden floor in the house during the tenancy, and what compensation should be awarded to the owners.  The house had polished wood floors in the lounge and dining room and in the kitchen and hall.  The agents alleged that the tenants had damaged two areas of the floor – one area in the kitchen and one in the lounge room.  The tenants admitted having caused the damage in the kitchen – by allowing a refrigerator to be dragged along the floor.  This had caused a long mark on the floor.  The tenants denied having caused any damage to the floor in lounge room.  However, photographs submitted to the hearing showed discolouration and scratches near a wall in the lounge room.

4. At the time of the hearing the floor had not been repaired, but the panel was provided with quotes for repair obtained…