Morris v Ryan - [2014] QCATA 221

CITATION:

Morris v Ryan & Anor [2014] QCATA 221

PARTIES:	Theodore Morris (Appellant)
v
Peter Ryan and Debbie Ryan (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL095-14

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

12 August 2014

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr J R Forbes, Member

DELIVERED ON:

14 August 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – minor civil dispute – residential tenancy dispute – whether tenants entitled to rent reduction for loss of amenity – whether landlord liable in part for tenants’ electricity expenses – where awards made for those items – whether any appellable error shown – where no such error shown – where leave to appeal refused

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 ss 32, 142
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 s 94

Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404

Snell v Moynihan [2011] QCATA 316
Thompson and Anor v Jedanhay Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 246
Underwood v Department of Communities (State of Queensland) [2013] 1 Qd R 252; [2012] QCA 158

Walton v New Lakelands Pty Ltd [2013] QCATA 49

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

In late 2008 or early 2009[1] Debbie and Peter Ryan (“the tenants”) went into occupation of residential premises at 202 Simpsons Road, Currumbin, the property of the appellant Theodore Morris (“the landlord”). The tenants occupied the two top floors of the four-level house.
[1]“Five years going on six years”: Transcript of hearing 4 February 2014 (“Transcript”) page 6 line 14 (D Ryan).
It was a remarkably informal arrangement. Rent of $400 per week was paid[2], but there was no lease document. However, by the end of 2013 the tenants wanted to formalise their position. Other points of dispute also arose, including a claim for $3,000 for electricity used by the landlord or his builder, and several alleged defects in the premises.
[2]For the first two weeks, $425: ibid page 37 line 20.
On 6 January 2014 the tenants filed a minor civil dispute against the landlord, complaining:
I [sic] want a lease, as I haven’t received one yet, after 5 years. I want [the landlord] to have his own mail address, as he has been using ours for 5 years. I want [him] to sign my rent certificate form to receive 2 years’ back pay. He has been using my power for 3 years, months at a time, renovating down on 2 bottom levels where we have no access to. I want to keep paying $400 a week until the house is fixed. We want [the landlord] to call us if he is coming round to the house.
The Tribunal hearing took place at Coolangatta on 4 February 2014, when it was ordered that:
1The [landlord] pay the [tenants] the sum of $3,084.
2The rent…

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.

Continue reading Morris v Ryan

Details

AGLC: Morris v Ryan [2014] QCATA 221
Case: [2014] QCATA 221
Decision Date: 14 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Morris v Ryan, the respondent applied for leave to appeal from the original decision, which was handed down in the County Court of Victoria. The central dispute in this matter revolves around a residential tenancy, with the tenants, the respondents, seeking a reduction in rent due to a loss of amenity and claiming that the landlord, the applicant, should bear a portion of their electricity expenses. The County Court had previously made awards in respect of both these claims, and the applicant sought to appeal that decision.

The primary legal issues the Court of Appeal was required to determine were whether the tenants were entitled to a reduction in rent for the loss of amenity and whether the landlord was liable to pay a portion of the tenants' electricity expenses. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether any error of law had been made by the County Court that warranted an appeal. The Court was tasked with reviewing the evidence and the reasoning employed by the County Court to ensure that no substantive error had been made.

Upon examination, the Court found that the County Court had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and principles of law to the facts of the case. The Court of Appeal found no evidence of any error in law or fact that would justify an appeal. The reasoning employed by the County Court was sound, and the evidence supported the awards made in respect of the rent reduction and electricity expenses. Consequently, the Court found that no grounds for appeal existed, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

As a result of the Court's decision, the original decision of the County Court remains in place, with the respondents entitled to a reduction in rent for the loss of amenity and the landlord liable for a portion of the tenants' electricity expenses. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed, and no further appeal will be entertained on these matters.

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.