‘
CITATION: Masinello v Parker & Anor (No.2) [2013] QCATA 325
PARTIES: Stamatina Masinello
(Appellant)v Kenneth Parker and Alexis Parker
(Respondents)
APPLICATION NUMBER: APL399-13
MATTER TYPE: Appeals
HEARING DATE: 6 November 2013
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: Dr Forbes, Member
DELIVERED ON: 8 November 2013
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:
Leave to appeal is refused.
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1]The respondents (the Tenants) leased premises at Queen’s Road, Hamilton, Brisbane, from the applicant (the Landlady) from 12 May 2012 to 11 May 2013. The rent was $2,100 per week. They…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Masinello v Parker & Anor (No 2) 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
- [2013] QCATA 325
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's application for a rebate of rent was appropriately brought under section 94 of the RTRAA or should have been brought under section 419. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the special time limit in section 419 applied to the section 94 application. The court also assessed whether the findings of fact made by the primary judge were supported by the evidence and whether the calculation of the rebate was within the limits of the court's discretion.
The court found that the appellant's application should indeed have been made under section 419 of the RTRAA, as it was essentially an application for a declaration and an order for compensation. However, the special time limit in section 419 did not apply to the section 94 application. The court further found that the primary judge's findings of fact were supported by the evidence and that the calculation of the rebate was within the limits of the court's discretion. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and denied the appellant leave to appeal.
The court's final order was that leave to appeal was refused. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and no further appeal was permitted.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal is refused.
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.