| CITATION: | Richardson v McArthur & Associates [2014] QCATA 044 |
| PARTIES: | Marcus Richardson (Appellant) |
| v | |
| McArthur & Associates (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL476-13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member Stilgoe OAM Member Howard |
| DELIVERED ON: | 13 March 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The record is corrected to reflect that the respondent’s name is McArthur & Associates; 2. The application for leave to appeal is refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AND APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE - RESIDENTIAL TENANCY MATTERS - where alleged breach of natural justice - whether leave to appeal should be granted Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 28(3)142 Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 33 British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie (2011) 273 ALR 429 Stephens v Stephens (2010) 43 Fam LR 106 Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] Qd R 388 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 Georgalis v Andonaras (1993) 113 FLR 196 Doherty v Liverpool District Hospital (1991) 22 NSWLR 284 |
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
Senior Member Stilgoe:
I have read the draft reasons for decision and orders of Member Howard. I agree with them.
Member Howard:
Mr Richardson filed an application for a minor civil dispute about a residential tenancy. The tenancy commenced in March 2012. It was terminated in about September 2013. He sought compensation in the amount of $24,570 plus filing fee. According to Mr Richardson’s application, the amount was for rent paid, bond and cleaning costs for the period during which he lived in the rental premises concerned, together with the sum of $2,900 for a 50 inch television which ‘blew up’ due to water entering from the ceiling. His claim was made on the basis that, in breach of s 185 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (the RTRA Act), the premises was unfit for a tenant to live in due to severe white ant infestation.
Mr Richardson’s application was dismissed by an Adjudicator. Mr Richardson seeks leave to appeal the learned Adjudicator’s decision.
The Adjudicator’s oral reasons set out the basis for his decision. He was satisfied that Mr Richardson became aware of…
Continue reading Richardson v McArthur & Associates
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Richardson v McArthur and Associates [2014] QCATA 44
- Case
- [2014] QCATA 44
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had standing to apply for the correction of the record, and if so, whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted. The court was required to determine whether the error in the record was material and whether the plaintiff had suffered any prejudice as a result of the error. The court also had to consider whether the application for leave to appeal was meritorious, and whether the appeal would have a reasonable chance of success.
The court found that the error in the record was not material, as the correct name of the defendant was evident from the pleadings and other documents in the case. The court held that the plaintiff had not suffered any prejudice as a result of the error, and that the correction of the record was therefore unnecessary. The court further held that the application for leave to appeal was not meritorious, as the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the appeal would have a reasonable chance of success. The court found that the decision of the County Court of Victoria was correct, and that there were no grounds for appeal.
The court refused the application for leave to appeal and ordered that the record be corrected to reflect that the defendant's name is McArthur & Associates. No further orders were made.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The record is corrected to reflect that the respondent’s name is McArthur & Associates;
2. 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.