Rostas v Shores Realty - [2014] QCAT 174

CITATION:

Rostas v Shores Realty [2014] QCAT 174

PARTIES:	Anthony Rostas (Applicant)
v
Shores Realty (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCD300/14; MCD112/14

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters
Residential tenancy matters

HEARING DATE:

14 March 2014

HEARD AT:

Southport

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Trueman

DELIVERED ON:

28 April 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

ORDERS MADE:

1. Claims 300/14 and 112/14 are dismissed.

CATCHWORDS :

Minor civil debt – Residential tenancy dispute – rent reduction – alleged loss of amenity and facilities – alleged unsafe premises – compensation for premises allegedly partly unfit to live – orders for compliance with Fire Safety laws

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 s 94, s 185, s 419

Trimble v Babet [2013] QCATA 81
Campbell v Donker [2013] QCATA 6
Underwood v Queensland Department of Communities (State of Queensland) [2012] QCA 158

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

APPLICANT:

Mr Anthony Rostas

RESPONDENT:

Mrs Karen Elliott (Property manager) on behalf of Shores Realty.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Rostas and his family rented a Penthouse at Southport, known as Unit 3302 at 1 Como Crescent. The lease commenced on 13 November 2012 and was for a fixed term period and was due to end on 19 November 2014. At the time of the hearing Mr Rostas had been evicted from the premises under a Termination Order and warrant of possession. Mr Rostas filed two claims, the first in January 2014 and the second in February 2014, which were both heard together on 14 March 2014. Substantially both claims seek the same orders for compensation by way of a retrospective rent reduction for what he alleges is due to the fact that “the property was not safe, and was unfit to live in”[1]. Further, that there was a “loss of amenity” and he could not use some of the properties facilities in that the pool and spa were not operational.
[1]Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 s 94.
Mrs Elliott is the property manager from Shores Realty who acts on behalf of the owner. She seeks orders from the tribunal that the claims should be dismissed.
Mr Rostas claims in his application a rent reduction for loss of facilities for the entire time he lived at the property and compensation of “60% rent multiplied by 24 weeks and or alternatively orders for the Lessor to comply with Fire Safety laws and to make the entire premises fit to live in and costs of lodging the claim” He seeks “a sum or quantum to be determined at the discretion of the tribunal”. At the hearing Mr Rostas quantified his claim seeking a “rent reduction of 80% of the weekly rent which was $1500.00 per week”, therefore calculated at a reimbursement of $1200.00 for each week he lived at the property. He lived at the property from November 2012 until March 2014, some 16 months or 64 weeks. The total amount claimed would be approximately $76,800.00.

Mr Rostas evidence

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 Rostas v Shores Realty

Details

AGLC: Rostas v Shores Realty [2014] QCAT 174
Case: [2014] QCAT 174
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Anthony Rostas lodged two claims against Shores Realty, the property manager for the owner of a penthouse located in Southport, seeking a rent reduction and compensation for a period of 16 months on the basis that the property was not safe, unfit to live in, and that there was a loss of amenity as the pool and spa were not operational. Shores Realty denied the claims and sought dismissal. The issues for determination were whether the property was unfit to live in and whether the amenities and facilities were not available for use by the tenant for a significant period of time. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence to support Mr Rostas' claims that the premises were unfit to live in and that the amenities and facilities were not available for use by him and his family. The Tribunal found that the property manager acted promptly and efficiently in addressing maintenance issues and that the property was in compliance with the relevant safety and health laws. The Tribunal concluded that Mr Rostas had not provided any evidence to support his claims and dismissed both claims.

Orders