Maksymiuk v Savage

Case [2015] QCA 177


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Maksymiuk v Savage [2015] QCA 177

PARTIES:

RICHARD MAKSYMIUK
(applicant)
v
WARREN SAVAGE
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 2431 of 2015
QCATA No 367 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act

ORIGINATING COURT:

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal at Brisbane – [2015] QCATA 5

DELIVERED ON:

25 September 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 May 2015

JUDGE:

Margaret McMurdo P and North and Henry JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Application for leave to appeal refused.

2.   Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the application to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES – NOTICE TO LEAVE FROM LESSOR’S AGENT TO TENANT – WHETHER RETALIATORY – Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 291
PROCEDURE – INFERIOR COURTS – QUEENSLAND – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where the applicant’s tenancy was terminated by the respondent by way of a notice – where the applicant filed an application challenging the notice – where the adjudicator dismissed the application – where the applicant sought leave to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal of QCAT but did not appear – where in this Court the applicant sought leave to appeal against the Appeal Tribunal’s refusal decision – whether there were reasonable prospects of success

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 44
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142(3), s 150
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 291

Bamfield v Zanfan Pty Ltd t/a Main Street Realty Caloundra [2010] QCATA 1, considered
Du Preez v Linda’s Homes Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 2, cited
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Crown Insurance Services Ltd (2012) 207 FCR 247; [2012] FCAFC 153, cited
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Trail Bros Steel & Plastics Pty Ltd (2010) 186 FCR 410; [2010] FCAFC 94, applied
Niall v Mangrove Housing Association Inc[2014] QCA 58, distinguished
Pickering v McArthur
[2005] QCA 294, cited
Rana v Repatriation Commission
(2011) 126 ALD 1; [2011] FCAFC 124, cited
Roads Corporation v Dacakis [1995] 2 VR 508; [1995] VicRp 70, cited
Smith v Ash [2011] 2 Qd R 175; [2010] QCA 112, considered
TNT Skypak International (Aust) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 82 ALR 175; [1988] FCA 119, cited
Underwood v Queensland Department of Communities (State of Queensland) [2013] 1 Qd R 252; [2012] QCA 158, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
J J Sheridan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
All About Law for the respondent

  1. MARGARET McMURDO P:  I agree with North J’s reasons for refusing this application for leave to appeal with costs.

  2. NORTH J:  The Il Centro Apartment Hotel is situated at 26-30 Sheridan Street, Cairns opposite the Supreme Court complex in Cairns.  The applicant occupies a unit…

Continue reading Maksymiuk v Savage

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Maksymiuk v Savage [2015] QCA 177
Case
[2015] QCA 177
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Maksymiuk v Savage, the applicant, Maksymiuk, sought to challenge the termination of their residential tenancy by the respondent, Savage. Maksymiuk argued that the notice to leave provided by Savage's agent was retaliatory and hence invalid. The dispute was adjudicated in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) and ultimately in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the notice to leave was retaliatory, in which case it would be invalid under section 291 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld). This section specifically prohibits a lessor or their agent from issuing a notice to leave if the motive for the notice is to retaliate against the tenant for exercising a right or performing an obligation under the Act. The court was required to assess the evidence presented to determine if the notice was indeed retaliatory.

The court examined the evidence and found no basis to conclude that the notice to leave was retaliatory. It held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the notice was issued for any retaliatory motive, and thus the notice was valid. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the Appeal Tribunal’s refusal decision was dismissed. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal refused.

2. Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the application to be assessed.

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.