Quaresmini v Huang - [2022] QCA 133

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Quaresmini v Huang & Anor [2022] QCA 133

PARTIES:

LAURENCE JOHN QUARESMINI
(appellant)
v
YU-YIN HUANG
(first respondent)
YU-JU ANNE HUANG
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 3527 of 2022
SC No 1380 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 24 February 2022 (Applegarth J)

DELIVERED ON:

29 July 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 July 2022

JUDGES:

McMurdo and Bond JJA and Davis J

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal be allowed.

2.   The orders made on 24 February 2022, with the exception of order number 2, be set aside.

3.   The respondents pay the costs of the appeal.

4.   The application to adduce further evidence in this Court be refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS – where the appellant commenced a proceeding in the Trial Division seeking an order that the respondents comply with s 365 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (“RTRA”) – where at the hearing of that application the appellant and respondents agreed to consent orders – where, upon rehearing, there was a factual dispute about whether the respondents had complied with the consent orders – where the consent orders must be construed in the context of the RTRA – where, upon rehearing, the trial judge declined to make findings of fact about compliance with the consent orders – whether the judge should have made findings of fact – whether the application should be re-heard

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 363, s 365

COUNSEL:

S W Trewavas for the appellant
G M Elmore for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Australian Law Partners for the appellant
Sterling Law for the respondents

McMURDO JA: From 2018 the appellant rented from the respondents a house and land at Algester, which I will call the Property. By early 2020, he was behind with his rent and in late 2021, he received from the respondents two Notices to Leave, each of which he ignored. On 27 December 2021, by an order made by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, the tenancy was terminated, and on 17 January 2022, a warrant of possession was executed by police officers.
Some of the appellant’s belongings remained on the Property. In late January 2022, the appellant had managed to remove some of them, but not all of them, claiming that the respondents prevented him from doing so.
On 3 February 2022, he commenced the present proceeding in the Trial Division by an originating application. He asked for the Court to order that he and his staff be granted access to the Property to remove his belongings, including “access for heavy transportation vehicles to remove two 40 ft shipping containers and valuable contents, two large prime movers and remaining items (as listed on an annexure to the application).” He sought a further order that the respondents comply with s 365…

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 [2022] QCA 133
Case: [2022] QCA 133
Decision Date: 29 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Quaresmini v Huang involved an appeal by the appellant against orders made by the Trial Division. The appellant had originally sought an order that the respondents comply with section 365 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld). After a hearing, consent orders were made by the parties, but a dispute arose at a subsequent hearing about whether the respondents had complied with those orders. The trial judge declined to make findings of fact about compliance, and the appellant appealed on the basis that the judge should have made such findings and that the application should be re-heard.

The central issue in this appeal was whether the trial judge was required to make findings of fact about compliance with the consent orders and whether the application should be re-heard. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine the correct approach to the interpretation of the consent orders in the context of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld). The court found that the trial judge had failed to consider the relevant statutory framework and that the orders should be construed in light of the Act. Consequently, the trial judge should have made findings of fact about compliance with the consent orders.

The court held that the appeal should be allowed and the orders made on 24 February 2022, with the exception of order number 2, should be set aside. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, and the application to adduce further evidence in the court was refused. The case underscores the importance of considering the relevant statutory framework when interpreting consent orders and the need for trial judges to make findings of fact where necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The orders made on 24 February 2022, with the exception of order number 2, be set aside.

3. The respondents pay the costs of the appeal.

4. The application to adduce further evidence in this Court be 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.

CITATION:	Quaresmini v Huang & Anor [2022] QCA 133
PARTIES:	LAURENCE JOHN QUARESMINI (appellant) v YU-YIN HUANG (first respondent) YU-JU ANNE HUANG (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 3527 of 2022 SC No 1380 of 2022
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 24 February 2022 (Applegarth J)
DELIVERED ON:	29 July 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 July 2022
JUDGES:	McMurdo and Bond JJA and Davis J
ORDERS:	1. The appeal be allowed. 2. The orders made on 24 February 2022, with the exception of order number 2, be set aside. 3. The respondents pay the costs of the appeal. 4. The application to adduce further evidence in this Court be refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS – where the appellant commenced a proceeding in the Trial Division seeking an order that the respondents comply with s 365 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (“RTRA”) – where at the hearing of that application the appellant and respondents agreed to consent orders – where, upon rehearing, there was a factual dispute about whether the respondents had complied with the consent orders – where the consent orders must be construed in the context of the RTRA – where, upon rehearing, the trial judge declined to make findings of fact about compliance with the consent orders – whether the judge should have made findings of fact – whether the application should be re-heard Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 363, s 365
COUNSEL:	S W Trewavas for the appellant G M Elmore for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Australian Law Partners for the appellant Sterling Law for the respondents