Redondo Property Investments Pty Ltd v Bennett - [2011] QCAT 282

CITATION:

Redondo Property Investments Pty Ltd v Bennett and Anor [2011] QCAT 282

PARTIES:	Redondo Property Investments Pty Ltd
v
Tracey Maree Bennett Robert John Blair

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDT242-11

MATTER TYPE:

Residential tenancy matters

HEARING DATE:

5 & 29 April 2011

HEARD AT:

Southport

DECISION OF:

Christine Trueman, Adjudicator

DELIVERED ON:

19 May 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

ORDERS MADE:

1. That the claim is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Compensation – rental arrears – cleaning, pest control, repairs – Duty to mitigate loss – terms of lease – whether claims for interest a penalty – reasonable cost of expenses – breach of agreement and time limitations – orders must be fair and equitable to the parties

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008, ss 173, 358, 362, 419
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 13

Joelco Pty Ltd v Balanced Securities Ltd [2009] QSC 236
Ringrow Pty Ltd v BP Australia Ltd (2005) 224 CLR 656
Clambake Pty Ltd v Tipperary Projects Pty Ltd (No 3) (2009) 77 ATR 242
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79
AMEV-UDC Finance Ltd v Austin(1986) 162 CLR 170

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Redondo Property Investments Pty Ltd represented by Mr Donald Ross
RESPONDENT:	Ms Tracey Bennett Mr Robert Blair

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Applicant Company is the Lessor of the property located at 1 Zane Street, Molendinar in the State of Queensland. The Respondents are two of four tenants that are named on a General Tenancy Agreement that was a fixed term of 12 months that started on 26/11/2008 and ended on 25/11/2009. The tenants remained in the property after the tenancy ended and occupied the property under a periodic agreement. The lease agreement provided that the property was let fully furnished and the tenants paid weekly rent of $806.00. Rent was paid directly into a Commonwealth Bank Account.

The tenants were not required to pay a Bond pursuant to the Lease Agreement. The lease contains special ‘Terms and Conditions’ that were attached to the lease and marked Schedule ‘A’ with pages numbered 9, 10 & 11. The lease was signed by four tenants, the two tenants who were Respondents to this claim and two other tenants, Jay McGavie and Allecia Cole. The lease was signed by all parties.

The claim was filed on 22 February 2011 seeking orders that the Respondent tenants pay to the Applicant the sum of $25,271.98 for matters of compensation including rental arrears and other charges. The Applicant alleges the tenants vacated the property on 31/1/2010. The claim alleges that the tenants had failed to pay any rental arrears despite requests to do so.

History

The lease was signed by the tenants Robert Blair, Tracey Bennett, Jasyn McGarvie and Allecia Cole on the 23 November 2008. The Applicant listed two of the tenants to the claim, alleging that the two other tenants signed the lease and moved into the property, but shortly after they moved in, all…

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 Redondo Property Investments Pty Ltd v Bennett

Details

AGLC: Redondo Property Investments Pty Ltd v Bennett [2011] QCAT 282
Case: [2011] QCAT 282
Decision Date: 19 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Redondo Property Investments Pty Ltd v Bennett was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute arose from a claim for rental arrears by Redondo Property Investments against Bennett, who was the tenant of a property. Redondo sought not only the unpaid rent but also additional costs for cleaning, pest control, and repairs. The tenant, Bennett, contested the claims, arguing that the landlord had failed to mitigate losses and that some expenses were unreasonable. Furthermore, Bennett raised the issue of whether the claims for interest amounted to a penalty and questioned the enforceability of certain terms in the lease agreement, particularly with regard to time limitations for breach.

The court was tasked with determining whether the landlord had adequately mitigated their losses, the reasonableness of the claimed expenses, and the enforceability of the interest provisions. Additionally, the court had to decide if the time limitations for breach of lease terms were enforceable and whether the orders made should be fair and equitable to both parties. The court examined the terms of the lease agreement and the evidence presented regarding the maintenance and condition of the property to assess these issues.

The Supreme Court of Queensland found that the landlord had not taken sufficient steps to mitigate their losses, which affected the amount of damages they could claim. The court also determined that some of the claimed expenses were unreasonable and that the interest provisions in the lease amounted to a penalty. Furthermore, the court held that the time limitations for breach of lease terms were enforceable. Based on these findings, the court dismissed the landlord's claim for compensation, holding that the orders must be fair and equitable to both parties.

Consequently, the court dismissed the landlord's claim, indicating that the landlord was not entitled to the full amount of rental arrears and additional expenses as claimed. The dismissal reflected the court's consideration of the duty to mitigate, the reasonableness of expenses, and the enforceability of the lease terms. The court's decision ensured that the orders were fair and equitable, taking into account the findings on the various issues presented in the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the claim is dismissed.

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.