Quaresmini v Huang - [2024] QCATA 53

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Quaresmini v Huang [2024] QCATA 53

PARTIES:

LAURENCE QUARESMINI

(respondent/appellant)

v

YU-YIN HUANG

(applicant/respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL296-22

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT 1065/22 Brisbane

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

14 May 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Bertelsen

ORDERS:

1. Leave to appeal is refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – where applicant sought recovery of loss of rent and loss due to damage alleged to have been caused during rental period – where respondent sought recovery in Supreme Court of trucks machinery and equipment post tenancy – where consideration of claims arising out of the tenancy and identifiable at vacate are separate and distinct from claims arising post tenancy – where post tenancy claims subject to Supreme Court orders – jurisdiction of Tribunal not inhibited by separate Supreme Court orders

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142(3)(a)(i)

Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 at 389
QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

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

On 21 April 2022 the original applicant Yu-Yin Huang filed an application for minor civil dispute – residential tenancy dispute seeking $19,306.00 on account of unpaid rent, water service charges, large machinery removal, site clean-up and QCAT application fees (‘the compensation claim’) from Laurence Quaresmini the original respondent in respect of his former tenancy of premises 108 Dakar Road Algester (‘the premises’).
On 29 August 2022 the Tribunal determined the residential tenancy dispute application finding:
(a)The Respondent pay to the Applicant the sum of $9,794.00 within seven days.
(b)The Applicant has liberty to reapply for a date before the presiding Adjudicator.
On 26 September 2022 Mr Quaresmini filed an application to stay the Adjudicator’s decision of 29 August 2022. The stay was refused on 15 November 2022. On 6 October 2022 Mr Quaresmini filed an application for leave to Appeal or Appeal to overturn and strike out the decision made on 29 August 2022, reopen the matter to be reheard and allow him additional submissions. This decision determines that application.
Historically Mr Quaresmini was a tenant at 108 Dakar Road Algester initially pursuant to a general tenancy agreement for the period 8 October 2018 to 8 February 2020. The rent was $480.00 per week with a bond of apparently $1,920.00 paid to the Residential Tenancies Authority (‘RTA’). A rent increase to $550.00 per week was to take effect from 26 April 2021.
An application for termination of the tenancy was made resulting in a termination order by the Tribunal on 13 December 2021. The tenancy was terminated on 27 December 2021 with a warrant of possession to…

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 Quaresmini v Huang

Details

AGLC: Quaresmini v Huang [2024] QCATA 53
Case: [2024] QCATA 53
Decision Date: 14 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Quaresmini, as the applicant, sought to recover losses for lost rent and damages alleged to have been caused during the rental period from Huang, the respondent. The dispute initially arose from a tenancy agreement where the applicant claimed losses during the tenancy period, while the respondent sought recovery of trucks and machinery post-tenancy. The matter was heard in the Civil Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which ordered that claims arising after the tenancy were to be determined in the Supreme Court. The applicant sought leave to appeal against this decision, arguing that the claims arising from the tenancy and those after the tenancy were part of the same dispute and should have been determined by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the CAT had jurisdiction to hear claims that arose after the tenancy, given that the Supreme Court had already ordered that these post-tenancy claims were to be determined in the Supreme Court. The court considered whether the claims arising out of the tenancy and those identifiable at the time of vacating were separate and distinct from the claims that arose after the tenancy. The court also needed to determine if the CAT's jurisdiction was inhibited by the Supreme Court's orders regarding the post-tenancy claims.

The court held that the claims arising from the tenancy and those post-tenancy were indeed separate and distinct, aligning with the Supreme Court's earlier orders. The court emphasised that the jurisdiction of the CAT was not inhibited by the Supreme Court's separate orders concerning the post-tenancy claims. Given this, the court found that the CAT's decision was appropriate, and there was no basis to grant the applicant's appeal. Consequently, the court refused the leave to appeal.

The final order of the court was to refuse leave to appeal. This decision upheld the separation of claims as determined by the Supreme Court and reinforced the distinct jurisdictions of the CAT and the Supreme Court in handling tenancy-related disputes.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is refused

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.