Professionals Edge Hill v Peterkin

[2013] QCATA 278

CITATION: Professionals Edge Hill v Peterkin [2013] QCATA 278

PARTIES:	Professionals Edge Hill (Applicant)
v
Suzanne Nicole Peterkin (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL240-13

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: G Trafford-Walker, Judicial Member

DELIVERED ON: 14 October 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where the applicant managed a property leased by the respondent – where the applicant claimed a sum for carpet cleaning and the cost of replacing a portion of the carpet – where the Tribunal directed a fixed sum be paid out of the respondent’s rental bond to cover cleaning fees – where the Tribunal refused the claim for the cost of replacing the carpet – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal that decision – whether leave to appeal should be granted 

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Applicant, a real estate manager, had a management agreement over property situated at flat 2, number 254, Lake Street, Cairns.  The respondent entered into an agreement to lease the said property from 8 October 2009.  As part of the agreement, she paid a rental bond of $1,000.00.

2. The Respondent occupied the premises for 4 years.  When she left, the rent was fully paid.  However, there was some cleaning of the carpets required, and a burn mark from an iron on the carpet.  The Applicant claimed a sum for cleaning the carpets and the cost of replacement for some of the carpet.

3. The Member allowed $132.00 for cleaning and $98.00 for the filing fee.  That amount was to be paid out on the rental bond with the balance returned to the Respondent.  The Member refused the balance of the claim.

4. The transcript shows that on a number of occasions, the Member commented on the poor quality of the photographs which were tended to show damage to the carpet.  The person appearing on behalf of the Applicant agreed.

5. For example:

   Member    “The photos aren’t particularly good”.

   Ms Ray     “They are not particularly clear”.

   Member    “They’re very unclear”.

   Member    “Terribly unclear”.

6. Then later on

   Member      “I’m happy to give it to the steam cleaning but I don’t have anything – any photos that allow me to form any view in respect to that carpet”.

7. The Member informed Ms Ray that it was an evidentiary matter and gave her the opportunity to bring forth more evidence.  Nothing further was led to support the application.

8. Because this is an appeal from a minor civil dispute, the Applicant must seek leave to appeal.  Leave may be granted if the dispute raises a question of general importance and the public would benefit from a decision on the question.  Leave may also be granted if a reasonably arguable case of error is shown and there is reasonable prospect that the Applicant will obtain substantive relief if the error is corrected.

9. There is no question of general importance in this matter to be determined by the Tribunal.  The decision of the Member was based upon the inadequacy of the evidence and an opportunity was given to Ms Ray to bring forward further advice.  In the circumstances, there was no error on the part of the Member.

10. The Member was required to make an order which was fair and reasonable to the parties.  Having regard to the evidence upon which the decision had to be made, this requirement has been fulfilled.  Leave to appeal is refused.