Richards v Stott - [2024] QCATA 54

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Richards & Anor v Stott [2024] QCATA 54

PARTIES:

LINDY RICHARDS

(FIRST APPLICANT/APPELLANT)

ALAN DAVIES

(second applicant/appellant)

v

PATRICK STOTT

(first respondent)

ALAYNE STOTT

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL384-22

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT757/22 (Beenleigh)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

21 May 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lember

ORDERS:

1. The application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – where decision in a residential tenancy dispute dismissed the lessors’ claim for compensation – where criminal charges laid against lessor for illegal entry to property and lessor sought compensation from the tenant for legal costs incurred – where compensation sought for repairs to property at end of tenancy without proof of property condition – where leave to appeal refused

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 28, s 32, s 143

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 188

Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd (1951) 217 ALR 1

Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
Hempel v Richardson & Wrench Hervey Bay [2018] QCATA 170
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this application about?

The appellant lessors brought an application in a residential tenancy dispute in MCDT757/22 – Beenleigh (the MCD application) against the respondent tenants claiming:
(a)reimbursement of solicitor’s fees incurred by Ms Richards and her mother to respond to criminal charges brought in relation to property entry over the respondents’ objections; and
(b)compensation for damage the property said to have been caused by the respondent tenants during their tenancy.
At the hearing on 22 November 2022, the MCD application was dismissed, the claim for legal fees as an abuse of process and the compensation claim because no evidence by way of reports or photographs was put to the Tribunal with respect to the state of the property at start or at the end of the tenancy.
The applicants want to appeal the decision but require leave to do so.[1] I have refused leave for the reasons that follow.
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), s 143(3).

Application for leave to appeal

In determining whether to grant leave, the Appeal Tribunal must be satisfied that:
(a)there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision;[2]
(b)there is a reasonable prospect that the appellant will obtain substantive relief;[3]
(c)leave is needed to correct a substantial injustice caused by some error;[4] or
(d)there is a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of…

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 Richards v Stott

Details

AGLC: Richards v Stott [2024] QCATA 54
Case: [2024] QCATA 54
Decision Date: 21 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Richards v Stott involved the lessors, Richards, against the tenant, Stott, in a residential tenancy dispute. Richards sought compensation from Stott for legal costs incurred due to criminal charges related to illegal entry to the property and for repairs to the property at the end of the tenancy, which Stott had not been able to substantiate. The trial judge dismissed Richards' claim for compensation, leading Richards to appeal against the decision, arguing for the leave to appeal. The primary issue before the court was whether the decision of the trial judge contained an error of law that warranted an appeal. The court also needed to determine whether Richards' claims for compensation were substantiated and if the trial judge's decision was just and fair under the circumstances.

The court examined the grounds of appeal and found that the trial judge's decision was not based on an error of law but rather on a comprehensive assessment of the evidence and the applicable legal principles. The judge had considered the circumstances of the illegal entry, the lack of proof of property condition at the end of the tenancy, and the overall fairness of the compensation sought. The court held that the trial judge's decision was well-reasoned and based on a proper application of the law. Consequently, the court refused the application for leave to appeal, concluding that there was no merit in the appeal.

No further orders were made, as the appeal was dismissed outright due to the lack of a valid legal basis. The decision reinforced the principle that appeals should be reserved for cases where there has been a clear error of law that materially affects the outcome of the case. In this instance, the court found no such error and upheld the trial judge's decision as correct.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for 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.