Peng v Beikoff

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Peng v Beikoff  [2021] QCATA 144

PARTIES:

JIQING PENG

(applicant\appellant)

v

SANDRA BEIKOFF

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL205-19

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

29 November 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Richard Oliver

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN NO APPEAL LIES – where dispute about repairs to residential tenancy – where finding of fact that the tenant had vacated the property in same condition, save for wear and tear as it was in at the commencement of the tenancy – where managing agent satisfied with the condition of the property – whether any basis to disturb findings of fact –– whether grounds for leave to appeal – whether the finding of fact open on the evidence – whether substantial injustice established.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act section 142(3)(a)(i)

Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd.R. 404.

Terera & Anor v Clifford [2017] QCA 181.
Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v McDermott [2016] HCA 22.

Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikowski [2012] QCATA 39.

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Ms Peng is the owner of a residential property at Upper Caboolture. Between September 2016 and the end of August 2018, Ms Beikoff rented the property from her under a Residential Tenancy Agreement. When the tenancy came to an end she vacated the property on 27 August 2018.

2. At the time Ms Beikoff decided to leave the property at the end of the tenancy agreement, the property was being managed by RE/MAX at Caboolture who took over the management on 2 July 2018. Prior to that the managing agent was LJ Hooker Caboolture.

3. At the commencement of the tenancy, an entry report was completed by LJ Hooker and presumably, although it is not clear, there would have been inspections of the property during the intervening period. At the conclusion of the tenancy, the property was inspected by the RE/MAX agent, Debbie Thompson, who was satisfied with the condition of the property. After that, when Ms Peng became involved, RE/MAX then contacted Ms Beikoff with further items of cleaning that required attention. Those matters were attended to by Ms Beikoff, with the assistance of her father, and after another inspection, RE/MAX was satisfied that all matters raised had been attended to and authorised the release of the bond.

4. However, the bond was not released, and Ms Peng then made a claim for further cost of carrying out repairs and maintenance in the sum of $6,500 in reliance on a report from Mowman Property Maintenance & Handyman Services dated 24 September 2018. There were 17 specific items which include internal painting for walls and repairs.

5. When the bond was not released, and a dispute developed, Ms Peng filed an application in the…