Ovseev v Pristine Management Pty Ltd - [2023] QCATA 168

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Ovseev v Pristine Management Pty Ltd [2023] QCATA 168

PARTIES:

MELANIE LOUISE PRIMMER

(first appellant)

ROBERT ASHLEY OVSEEV

(second appellant)

v

PRISTINE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

No. APL 219 of 2022

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

Noosa Claim T 29 of 2022

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

18 December 2023

HEARING DATE:

On-papers Hearing

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Rinaudo AM

ORDERS:

1.     The application for leave to appeal is granted.

2.     The appeal is allowed.

3.     The decision of the learned magistrate made on 27 June 2022 is set aside.

4.     The matter is remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS — QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL — appeal from decision of magistrate sitting as tribunal member — minor civil dispute — where reasons given were inadequate — appeal allowed

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld)

Commonwealth of Australia v Pharmacy Guild of Australia [1989] FCA 797; 91 ALR 65

Owen v Menzies [2012] QCA 170; [2013] 2 Qd R 327
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

Public Service Board of New South Wales v Osmond [1986] HCA 7; 159 CLR 656

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Appeal

Melaine Primmer and Robert Ovseev (‘the appellants’) make an application for leave to appeal a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) made in Maroochydore on 27 June 2022.
The appellants were tenants pursuant to a residential tenancies agreement of a property owned by Jeanette Campbell (‘the owner’) and managed by Pristine Management Pty Ltd (‘the respondent’).
The decision subject of the appeal, made by a magistrate sitting as the Tribunal (‘the learned magistrate’) is:
(a)The appellants to pay the respondent the sum of $9,000.00.
(b)The bond amount of $2,500.00 to be released to the respondent.
(c)The appellants to pay to the respondent the balance amount of $6,500.00.

History

The appellants entered into possession of the premises pursuant to a tenancy agreement on 19 January 2019. Notice to vacate the property was given on 20 October 2021. A warrant for possession was issued on 11 February 2022. The appellants vacated the property on 19 February 2022.
A claim for compensation was made in the Tribunal pursuant to the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (‘the RT Act’) in the sum of $12,375.00. The particulars of this amount are contained in “annexure A” to the claim.
“Annexure A” contained eight items of expenditure, totalling $12,375.23, claimed by the respondent, together with supporting evidence, including copies of invoices, receipts, and photographs.
The claim was heard and determined by the learned magistrate on 27 June 2022.

The hearing of the…

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 Ovseev v Pristine Management Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ovseev v Pristine Management Pty Ltd [2023] QCATA 168
Case: [2023] QCATA 168
Decision Date: 18 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ovseev v Pristine Management Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the applicant, Mr. Ovseev, and the respondent, Pristine Management Pty Ltd, concerning a minor civil matter. The case was initially heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), where the magistrate, acting as a tribunal member, ruled in favour of the respondent. Dissatisfied with the outcome and the reasons provided, Mr. Ovseev sought an appeal to the court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the reasons given by the magistrate were adequate to justify the decision made. The court needed to determine if the magistrate's findings were clear and sufficient to allow for meaningful judicial review. The adequacy of reasons is a critical aspect of administrative law, ensuring transparency and accountability in tribunal decisions.

The court found that the reasons provided by the magistrate were indeed inadequate. The reasons did not sufficiently address the key issues in the case or demonstrate how the evidence led to the conclusion reached. The court held that such insufficiency deprived Mr. Ovseev of the opportunity for proper judicial review. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the decision of the magistrate was set aside. The matter was remitted for rehearing before a tribunal constituted differently to ensure a fair and transparent process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal is allowed.

3. The decision of the learned magistrate made on 27 June 2022 is set aside.

4. The matter is remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal.

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.