Murphy v Werchon - [2025] QCAT 425

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Murphy v Werchon [2025] QCAT 425

PARTIES:

DANIELJACK MURPHY

(applicant)

v

JULIE WERCHON

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

Q7325-25

MATTER TYPE:

Residential tenancy matters

DELIVERED ON:

5 September 2025

HEARING DATE:

6 August 2025

HEARD AT:

Maroochydore

DECISION OF:

Magistrate Madsen

ORDERS:

Application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

LANDLORD AND TENANT – RESIDENTIAL TENANCY LEGISLATION – OBLIGATIONS, PROHIBITED MATTERS AND PROTECTION FOR LESSEES – OTHER MATTERS – where tenant made an application for compensation with respect to rent increase – where tenant made several claims for compensation arising from water damage and mould – whether claims are statute barred – whether landlord keep premises in good repair – whether the property was fit for habitation

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld)

Big4 Brisbane Northside Caravan Village v Schliebs [2012] QCAT 277
Carney v Home Rentals Queensland [2020] QCATA 119
Challands & Anor v Jackson [2014] QCATA 330
Hayes v Twomey Schriber Property Group [2022] QCAT 32
Sheehy v Hobbs [2012] QSC 333
Wise v Ray White Nerang [2021] QCATA 71

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Parties appeared in person

REASONS FOR DECISION

These proceedings relate to a claim for compensation from a long-term tenancy at 69 Mapleton Road, Nambour. The most recent tenancy started in November 2024 and lasted for 12 months.
The tenant submitted a dispute resolution request on 3 April 2025. The Notice of Unresolved Dispute (‘NURD’) was issued on 9 May 2025. Proceedings commenced in the tribunal on 26 May 2025.
The agent confirmed in an email that the NURD related to compensation and repairs that were not specified, and they requested details (Email dated 18 June 2025).
The initial request for a rent reduction is mentioned in an email dated 4 April 2025.
The Applicant’s email formally requests compensation for increased rent due to ongoing unresolved maintenance issues and seeks provision of temporary accommodation until necessary work, such as mould remediation, is completed. It also requests a rent reduction until the problems are effectively addressed. The email also seeks compensation for loss of goods and incurred costs.
A claim for compensation for rent exceeding $16,000 was made.

Loss of Goods

Regarding the loss of goods, a detailed summary titled “loss of goods” was provided by the Applicant following the hearing. While the value of the amounts claimed seems reasonable, I cannot be convinced on a fair and reasonable basis that the damage to the goods occurred due to an event known to the Applicant six months prior to submitting the notice of unresolved dispute to the RTA. A thorough review of the extensive records kept by the applicant shows that although it is possible that mould or water damaged the items mentioned, it is also likely, and I believe more likely than not, that the damage happened outside of the six-month limitation period that applies.

Temporary Housing

The claim for temporary housing or compensation while work was being done resulted in a credit to the rent ledger for about seven days (rent ledger provided…

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 Murphy v Werchon

Details

AGLC: Murphy v Werchon [2025] QCAT 425
Case: [2025] QCAT 425
Decision Date: 5 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Murphy v Werchon, the dispute arose between the tenant, Murphy, and the landlord, Werchon, over compensation for rent increases and damages caused by water leakage and mould. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Murphy claimed compensation for the substandard condition of the rental property, alleging that it was not fit for habitation and that Werchon had breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancy Act. The court had to determine whether Murphy's claims were statute-barred, whether Werchon had failed to keep the premises in good repair, and whether the property was fit for habitation.

The court considered whether Murphy's claims were time-barred and found that the tenant had not acted promptly in submitting a Form 16 to the Residential Tenancy Authority. The court also evaluated whether Werchon had fulfilled their duty to maintain the property in good repair and whether the property met the necessary standards for habitability. It was noted that the landlord had not had a fair opportunity to review the report and its recommendations, and it was unclear whether the matter had been properly referred for conciliation. The court concluded that Murphy had not adequately demonstrated that the property was unfit for habitation or that Werchon had failed to fulfil their obligations under the Residential Tenancy Act.

In light of the above, the court dismissed Murphy's application for compensation. The court found that Murphy had not acted within the statutory timeframes and had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims. Additionally, the court determined that the landlord had not breached their statutory obligations to maintain the property in good repair or ensure it was fit for habitation. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and no compensation was awarded to Murphy.

ORDERS:
The application is dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The report concludes that the failure of the managing agent or landlord to rectify this issue in a timely or effective manner constitutes a clear breach of statutory duty and could lead to litigation for negligence or failure to provide a habitable dwelling. However, the conclusion is also followed by a number of recommendations:(a)Engage a structural engineer.(b)Commission an environmental hygienist.(c)Undertake an invasive investigation by a qualified builder.(d)Remove and replace all damaged building materials.(e)Ensure work carried out by licensed professionals – with an additional requirement documented with photographic evidence and relevant trade certificates. As I indicated earlier in these reasons, I have not thoroughly considered other parts of the report. The agent did not have a fair or reasonable opportunity to be fully informed of the report, and its existence was only brought to their notice towards the end of the proceeding that I was then conducting.[15] [15]It was equally possible that the applicant did not have the ability to properly and fairly consider the implications of the report. The report was updated on 6 August 2025. Having just received it, the tenant could not have raised the issues mentioned nor made a claim for a rent reduction because of a conclusion that the ground floor of the dwelling was uninhabitable in a Form 16. The recommendations in the building report do give cause for concern. However, equally, the recommended further action may result in different, less worrisome conclusions. Significantly, in my opinion, the lessor should promptly consider the minimum standard obligations. The rent paid cannot be used to avoid compliance with those standards. It is unclear what was submitted to the RTA or why the matter was considered unsuitable for conciliation. It was suggested that the RTA had concluded the matter was not suitable for conciliation because the tenant had requested a significant amount of compensation. The landlord’s agent advised the tenant to provide further details of the compensation amounts sought and to resubmit another dispute resolution request. This did not seem like an unreasonable request given the circumstances. Nor did this suggestion appear to be an unreasonable way to meet the compulsory requirement of having a conciliation before starting proceedings. It is unclear what was referred to in the Form 16 submitted to the RTA, as it has not been included in the documents provided by the parties. Based on what I have been provided, it seems that the collateral communications made at the time of the parties do not indicate that a section 94 claim was referred for conciliation. The issue of a rent reduction needs to be submitted to the RTA in a suitable manner.[16] [16]Wise v Ray White Nerang [2021] QCATA 71, [7] “this [issue] had not been conciliated”, [11] “(on form 16) which covered various issues….” which would have allowed this issue to be raised in the tribunal. At best, considering the claim as expressed in the communications, in the application, and during the hearing, the applicant could only say that they were seeking compensation for rent they should not have paid due to the substandard condition of the premises but had agreed to pay nonetheless.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.