Noelib Pty Ltd v Clarke Summary

[2000] QCA 67

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
DAVIES JA
THOMAS JA

Appeal No 11414 of 1999
DC No 1093 of 1998

NOELIB PTY LTD (Third Party) Applicant

and

BARRY ANTHONY CLARKE (Plaintiff) First Respondent

and

KENNETH F BANFIELD
ANNEE G BANFIELD (Defendants) Second Respondents

BRISBANE

DATE 13/03/2000

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: In my opinion notwithstanding the argument of Mr Myers of counsel for the applicant there is no question of law necessarily arising under either the Residential TenanciesAct or the Property Law Act or any other question of sufficient significance to justify a grant of leave to appeal to this Court. Accordingly, I would refuse the application.

PINCUS JA: I agree.

THOMAS JA: I take the view that it is arguable that liability based on s.103 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1994 or on s.106 of the Property Law Act 1974 is not soundly based. However, there is no reason to think that any error on the part of the learned trial Judge in basing the judgment on contract rather than tort would lead to any different result in the end. His Honour indicated that he would not be prepared to find contributory negligence even if that issue arose before him. On the evidence in the case it would seem to have been at least open to his Honour to take that view.

In the end then I do not see this case as an appropriate vehicle for consideration of further legal questions. I do not consider that any injustice will be caused by the refusal of the application. I agree with the order proposed by Justice Davies.

DAVIES JA: The application is refused.

MR LYNCH: I'd ask for costs, your Honour.

MR SOWDEN: I'd ask for costs also.

DAVIES JA: Can you say anything about that, Mr Myers?

MR MYERS: I can't say anything about it, your Honour.

DAVIES JA: With costs in each case.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Noelib Pty Ltd, as the third party, appealed against the decision in the District Court in a case where Barry Anthony Clarke was the plaintiff and Kenneth F Banfield and Annee G Banfield were the defendants. The appeal focused on the liability of the third party in relation to the residential tenancy and property law issues. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the District Court's decision contained any errors of law that warranted an appeal. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the District Court erred in its interpretation of the Residential Tenancies Act 1994 and the Property Law Act 1974, specifically in relation to liability under sections 103 and 106 of these acts. The court also considered whether the District Court's reliance on contractual principles rather than tort principles in its judgment was appropriate and if it could have led to a different outcome. The court concluded that while there were arguable points regarding the soundness of liability based on the specified sections of the acts, there was no indication that any error by the trial judge would result in a different final result. Additionally, the court found that the trial judge's decision not to consider contributory negligence was supported by the evidence. Given these considerations, the Court of Appeal determined that the appeal did not present a suitable opportunity to address further legal questions and that no injustice would be caused by refusing the application. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with costs in each case.

Noelib Pty Ltd v Clarke

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established