Parker v Parker - [2010] QCAT 235

CITATION:

Parker v Parker [2010] QCAT 235

PARTIES:	Glen Parker
v
Narelle Parker

APPLICATION NUMBER:

Minor Civil Dispute - Tenancy 102/10

MATTER TYPE:

Residential tenancy matters

HEARING DATE:

05 May 2010

HEARD AT:

Coolangatta

DECISION OF:

Ms Kay Kirmos, Adjudicator

DELIVERED ON:

05 May 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Coolangatta

ORDERS MADE:

The Tribunal orders that the tenant pay the landlord $7675, and directs the RTA to pay to the lessor the bond of $2100 in part satisfaction of the order

CATCHWORDS :

Failure of Lessor to Remedy Breach, Termination Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008, s 309

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	In person
RESPONDENT:	In person

REASONS FOR DECISION

The lessor seeks compensation on the basis of a breach of tenancy agreement of $5775 due to the tenant having vacated the rented premises early, $3,296.65 for repairs and replacement of items damaged or missing, $525 weekly until the premises are relet, reletting fee of $525, compensation of the difference between the amount at which the premises are relet and $525 weekly, and bond to be released to the lessor. The tenant seeks a termination of the tenancy, and return of his bond.

The tenant moved into the rented premises on 1 April 2009, having entered into a tenancy for a period of two years ending 27/3/10 at a weekly rent of $525. The rented premises were furnished. The tenant vacated on 21 February 2010, having given a notice to the lessor to remedy breaches and a notice of his intention to leave.

The lessor attended the hearing with her witness, her daughter Carriae Dawson-Wheeler. The tenant attended the hearing personally and gave evidence. Both parties tendered a large volume of documents in support.

The lessor and her witness gave evidence in summary:

On 25/6/10 she received an email from the tenant, indicating that he was very happy with the rented premises. She only agreed to the tenancy and the painting of the rented premises ass the tenant had stated that he would stay for two years. He was a professional man and she wanted to ensure he was happy.
Things were going wrong when he said he wanted to buy the rented premises. On 13/1/10, he told the lessor that he wanted to vacate the rented premises. On 15/1/10, he was informed he would not be let out of the lease. He then invented problems with the rented premises, and wanted the lessor to evict him. He gave the lessor a notice to remedy breach on 15/1/10, and giving the lessor until 22/1/10 to make repairs. She was not given the required 7 days. In any event, she completed all the required repairs by 28/1/10, although the tenant gave her a notice of intention to leave on account of the unremedied breaches on 4/2/10, and misinformed the Tribunal that the breaches had not been remedied. The tenant was told that he could leave if he found another tenant
The tenant served the breach notice only after…

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 Parker v Parker

Details

AGLC: Parker v Parker [2010] QCAT 235
Case: [2010] QCAT 235
Decision Date: 05 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter between Parker and Parker came before the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The dispute involved a residential tenancy under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008. The tenant, who was the respondent, sought an order for termination of the lease due to the landlord's failure to remedy breaches of the Act. The landlord, who was the applicant, sought compensation for unpaid rent and costs.

The primary issue for the Tribunal was whether the landlord had breached the Act by failing to remedy certain issues, which if unremedied, justified the tenant's termination of the lease. The Tribunal had to consider the specific provisions of the Act, including section 309, which addresses the consequences of a landlord's failure to remedy breaches. The Tribunal also needed to assess the evidence provided by both parties regarding the breaches and their impact on the tenancy.

The Tribunal found that the landlord had indeed failed to remedy significant breaches of the Act, which included issues related to habitability and maintenance. The Tribunal concluded that these breaches justified the tenant's decision to terminate the lease. However, the Tribunal also found that the tenant had not followed the correct procedure to terminate the lease under the Act, which meant that the lease was not properly terminated. Nonetheless, the Tribunal awarded the landlord compensation for the unpaid rent and costs, while ordering the tenant to pay the landlord the amount of $7675. The Tribunal also directed the Residential Tenancies Authority to pay to the landlord the bond of $2100 in part satisfaction of the order.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that the tenant pay the landlord $7675, and directs the RTA to pay to the lessor the bond of $2100 in part satisfaction of the order

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.