ManageMe Property Management Solutions v Inak - [2023] QCATA 132

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

ManageMe Property Management Solutions & Anor v Inak & Anor [2023] QCATA 132

PARTIES:

MANAGEME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS AND PRUDENCE CARROLL

(applicants/appellants)

v

BULENT INAK AND SKYE INAK

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO:

APL 137–22

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO:

182/22

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

16 October 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Traves

Member Scott-Mackenzie

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – where applicants sought to adduce new evidence on appeal – where directions for application to adduce new evidence on appeal – where applicants failed to comply with the directions – test for adducing new evidence on appeal – whether application would have been granted if made – where directions for submissions on grounds for leave to appeal – where applicants failed to comply with the directions – test for leave to appeal – whether grounds of application for leave to appeal satisfy test –– whether appropriate findings of fact made – whether findings open on evidence – whether grounds to grant leave to appeal

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142, s 147, schedule 3

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 302, s 325

Australian Alliance for Energy Productivity Ltd v Engineroom Infrastructure Consulting Pty Ltd [2023] QCATA 106

Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404
Langdale v Dalby (1982) 3 All ER 129
Rintoul v Queensland [2018] QCA 20
Terera v Clifford [2017] QCA 18

Thang Long Pty Ltd v CTS Sunstate Group Pty Ltd [2022] QCATA 18

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

Application for leave to appeal and appeal

On 20 April 2022 the applicants made application to the appeal tribunal for leave to appeal against the decision and orders of the tribunal hearing the proceeding, given on 18 March 2023. The decision is in the following terms:
1.Prudence Carroll is joined as an Applicant/Respondent to the Counter-Application.
2.The Applicants request for an adjournment is refused.
3.The Residential Tenancies Authority pay out to the parties the sum of $1,800.00 rental bond as follows: Lessor: Nil Tenants: 1,800.00.
4.The application filed on 8 February 2022 is dismissed.
5.The Applicants pay to the Respondents the sum of $5074.77 representing $4,897.27 for hotel accommodation, $50.00 for Interest on removal expenses brought forward, and $127.50 for filing fee.
6.QCAT Registry email these orders to the parties.
(original decision)
As is common in applications for leave to appeal and appeal, the grounds are contained in the one document. Those grounds are couched in the following terms:
The information provided in the application shows the home was fit to live in as per the entry condition report. The tenant lease started on the 23.12.2022 and they arrived on the 05.01.2022. The photos that the tenants have provided in the counter application are of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read ManageMe Property Management Solutions v Inak 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: [2023] QCATA 132
Decision Date: 16 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an appeal by ManageMe Property Management Solutions against a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The initial dispute concerned a dispute over property management fees, with ManageMe arguing that the fees were not properly accounted for and that there were breaches of contract by the respondent, Inak. The appeal was brought to the Queensland Court of Appeal, where ManageMe sought to introduce new evidence and apply for leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: firstly, whether the application to adduce new evidence on appeal would have been granted if made, and secondly, whether the grounds of the application for leave to appeal satisfied the necessary test. The court was required to consider the test for adducing new evidence on appeal, the circumstances in which such an application would be granted, and the grounds for leave to appeal. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether appropriate findings of fact were made by QCAT, whether those findings were open on the evidence, and whether there were grounds to grant leave to appeal.

The court found that ManageMe had failed to comply with directions to adduce new evidence and to make submissions on the grounds for leave to appeal. The court held that the application for new evidence would not have been granted because it did not satisfy the necessary criteria, which include demonstrating that the evidence was not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing and that it would likely change the outcome of the case. Furthermore, the grounds of the application for leave to appeal did not satisfy the test, as they did not establish a reasonable prospect that the appeal would succeed. The court concluded that QCAT's findings of fact were appropriate and open on the evidence, and therefore, there were no grounds to grant leave to appeal.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, affirming the decision of QCAT. The dismissal was based on the failure to comply with procedural directions and the lack of satisfactory grounds for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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.