Reeves v J.F. Hartley Family Trust

[2014] QCATA 72

CITATION: Reeves v J.F. Hartley Family Trust [2014] QCATA 072

PARTIES:	Janelle Louise Reeves (Applicant/Appellant)
v
J.F. Hartley Family Trust (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL462 -13

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Senior Member Stilgoe, OAM

DELIVERED ON: 10 April 2014

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.    Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – whether grounds for leave to appeal

Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294
Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1

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 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. At the end of a tenancy, Mr and Mrs Reeves applied for the return of their bond. They also wanted an abatement of rent. At the hearing of those claims, Mr Hartley for J.F. Hartley Family Trust told the tribunal there were some compensation issues, so the tribunal adjourned the hearing to enable both claims to be heard at the same time.

2. At the second hearing, an Adjudicator gave Mr and Mrs Reeves a rebate of $400 but gave Hartley compensation of $4,343.46. The net effect, of course, was that Mr and Mrs Reeves had to pay Hartley $3,943.46.

3. Mrs Reeves wants to appeal that decision. She does not understand why the second Adjudicator did not refer to the insurance claim by Hartley. She doesn’t know where her $400 compensation went. She wants to know why the learned Adjudicator did not hear her complaints about Hartley. She also queries how the learned Adjudicator gave Hartley compensation for damage to walls without any evidence being provided.

4. Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary. The principles the appeals tribunal applies when considering an application for leave to appeal are as summarised by Keane JA (as His Honour then was) in Pickering v McArthur[1]:

   There are numerous authorities, in varying language but with unvarying emphasis, that leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.

   [1][2005] QCA 294 at [3].

5. Hartley’s insurance claim was a matter for discussion at the hearing. Ms Hartley explained that they had received payment on an insurance claim and this payment was shown on the ledger[2]. The learned Adjudicator then observed that he was not concerned with whether the lessor received an insurance payment. He explained the principle of subrogation to Ms Reeves[3].  The learned Adjudicator was not in error.

   [2]Transcript page 1-26, lines 7-9.

   [3]Transcript page 1-26, lines 14-41.

6. I have already explained what happened to Mr and Mrs Reeves’ compensation of $400. The transcript shows[4] clearly that the learned Adjudicator deducted this sum from the total owing to Hartley. Again, the learned Adjudicator was not in error.

   [4]Transcript page 1-33, lines 7-9.

7. The learned Adjudicator told Ms Reeves that he could not make orders about her claims of harassment by Hartley[5]. Despite this, Ms Reeves made submissions about the harassment[6]. In his reasons for decision, the learned Adjudicator again told Ms Reeves that he had no power to order compensation for harassment[7].

   [5]Transcript page 1-1, lines 23-29.

   [6]Transcript page 1-23, lines 22-46; page 1-24, lines 1-5; page 1-29, lines 4-8.

   [7]Transcript page 1-29, lines 35-36.

1. The appeal tribunal will not usually disturb findings of fact on appeal if the evidence is capable of supporting the conclusions.[8]  An appellate tribunal may interfere if the conclusion is ‘contrary to compelling inferences’ in the case.[9] 

   [8]Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 at 561; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 125-126.

   [9]Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 at 10.

1. There was a long discussion about the damage to the walls[10]. The learned Adjudicator acknowledged that there as some confusion and dispute about the damage[11]. He was satisfied that Ms Reeves caused some damage to the wall but he was not satisfied that the full claim of $500 was justified. He therefore ordered Ms Reeves pay Hartley $200 for that damage. The evidence can support that finding and I can find no compelling reason to come to a different view.

   [10]Transcript page 1-13, line 32 to page 1-17, line 3.

   [11]Transcript page 1-31, line 26.

1. There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Adjudicator was in error. Leave to appeal should be refused.