Murray v Ray Bachmann Real Estate - [2024] QCATA 45

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Murray & Anor v Ray Bachmann Real Estate [2024] QCATA 45

PARTIES:

CLARA MURRAY
DOUGLAS MURRAY

(applicants/appellants)

v

RAY BACHMANN REAL ESTATE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL122-23

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT 174-23

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

17 April 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Deane

ORDERS:

1.     Leave to appeal is granted.

2.     The appeal is allowed as far as it relates to claims other than for termination.

3.     The decision of 12 April 2023 in Brisbane claim MCDT174-23 dismissing claims other than for termination is set aside.

4.     Claims other than for termination are remitted for reconsideration according to law by a different Adjudicator with the hearing of additional evidence in respect of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the claims, if deemed necessary by the Tribunal, on a date to be determined by the registrar.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES - ERROR OF LAW-PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVING ERROR OF LAW – DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE - whether leave to appeal should be granted – whether appeal should be allowed - minor civil dispute – residential tenancy dispute - where initial application sought termination, compensation and other orders – where application dismissed – where not afforded the opportunity to make submissions about claims other than for termination

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES - ERROR OF LAW-PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVING ERROR OF LAW –– FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS FOR DECISION – EXTENT OF OBLIGATION TO GIVE REASONS – GENERALLY – whether leave to appeal should be granted – whether appeal should be allowed - minor civil dispute – residential tenancy dispute - where application sought termination, compensation and other orders – where application dismissed – where reasons did not address claims other than termination

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 32CA

Human Rights Act (Qld) 2019, s 8, s 9, s 11, s13, s 24, s 25, s 31, s 48
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 28, s 142

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 246A, s 277, s 309, s 311, s 313, s 315, s 327, s 415, s 416, s 419, s 421, s 424, s 426, s 431

Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291

Gemshell Pty Ltd t/as Swallow Fashion [2018] QCATA 27
Leeds v Turner t/as design2BUILD [2021] QCATA 85
Morrison v Chen [2015] QCATA 129

Saxer v Hume [2022] QCATA 25

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Clara and Douglas Murray rented residential premises through Ray Bachmann Real Estate (the Property Manager). Disputes arose and the Murrays applied to the Tribunal for various orders including for termination on various bases and compensation in the amount of $5,980.40. Their compensation claim…

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 Murray v Ray Bachmann Real Estate

Details

AGLC: Murray v Ray Bachmann Real Estate [2024] QCATA 45
Case: [2024] QCATA 45
Decision Date: 17 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Murray v Ray Bachmann Real Estate involves a dispute over a residential tenancy. The initial application was filed by Murray against Ray Bachmann Real Estate seeking termination of the lease, compensation, and other orders. The application was dismissed by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) on 12 April 2023. Murray sought leave to appeal this decision, arguing that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to provide reasons for dismissing claims other than for termination and by denying natural justice by not allowing him to make submissions on these claims.

The central legal issues before the court were whether leave to appeal should be granted, and if the appeal should be allowed. Murray contended that the Tribunal's decision was flawed due to the failure to give reasons for dismissing claims other than for termination, which constituted an error of law and a denial of natural justice. Ray Bachmann Real Estate opposed the appeal, arguing that the Tribunal's decision should be upheld.

The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal as far as it related to claims other than for termination. It found that the Tribunal erred in not providing reasons for dismissing these claims, which constituted an error of law and a denial of natural justice. The court held that Murray should have been afforded the opportunity to make submissions on all his claims. Consequently, the decision of 12 April 2023 dismissing claims other than for termination was set aside, and those claims were remitted for reconsideration according to law by a different Adjudicator, with the possibility of additional evidence being heard concerning the Tribunal's jurisdiction, if deemed necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal is allowed as far as it relates to claims other than for termination.

3. The decision of 12 April 2023 in Brisbane claim MCDT174-23 dismissing claims other than for termination is set aside.

4. Claims other than for termination are remitted for reconsideration according to law by a different Adjudicator with the hearing of additional evidence in respect of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the claims, if deemed necessary by the Tribunal, on a date to be determined by the registrar.

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.