S & L v LJ Hooker Mountain Creek - [2025] QCAT 472

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

S & L v LJ Hooker Mountain Creek [2025] QCAT 472

PARTIES:

S &  L

(Applicants)

v

LJ HOOKER MOUNTAIN CREEK

(Respondent/Cross-Applicant)

APPLICATION NO/S:

Maroochydore Claim Q2597-25

MATTER TYPE:

Residential tenancy matters

DELIVERED ON:

18 November 2025

HEARING DATE:

5 November 2025

HEARD AT:

Maroochydore

DECISION OF:

Acting Magistrate Janelle (Payne) Boegheim
(Ordinary Member) – delivered from Caboolture

ORDERS:

1.       The tenants are to pay the lessor the sum of $4,839 (including filing fee of $158) calculated as follows:

(a)     Rent from 14 to 23 January 2025 $1,221.43

(b)     Break lease - 1 week $1,045.00

(c)     Cleaning $1,500

(d)     Mattress $500,00

(e)     Locksmith $415.00

(f)      Filing fee $158.00

2.       The Residential Tenancies Authority is to pay the $3,800 rental bond to the lessor, in partial satisfaction of the compensation ordered in paragraph 1.

CATCHWORDS:

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY DISPUTE – whether lessor entitled to compensation – where tenant claimed property left clean on exit but did not return keys until some days later allowing another person to occupy property – whether gardening recoverable- COSTS – whether claim for compensation is a liquidated demand – whether property agent’s appearance fees recoverable

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 102

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008, s 420

Eising v Westgarth Realty Pty Ltd [2019] QCATA 120
Rollone Pty Ltd ACN 101 829 231 v Byrne [2010] QDC 517
Tuendemann v JD Property (Aust) Pty Ltd [2023] QCATA 153;

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is claim by a tenant, with a counterclaim by the lessor, in relation to a residential tenancy. The relevant issue is whether the lessor is entitled to compensation, to be deducted from the bond or if the bond should be returned to the tenants.

Relevant principles

Provided that the counterclaim has been commenced within the requisite time, section 420 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act (RTRAA) allows QCAT to make compensation orders (and/or other orders) for breaches of tenancy agreements including:

(a)An order restraining any action in breach of the agreement;
(b)An order for the payment of the money;
(c)An order requiring an action in performance of the agreement;
(d)An order that a party to the agreement perform the work, or take the steps, stated in the order to remedy a breach of the agreement;
(e)An order for compensation;
(f)An order requiring payment of all or part of the rent under the agreement to the tribunal until –
(i)      the whole part of the agreement has been performed; or
(ii)      An application for compensation has been decided;
(g)An order requiring payment (from rent paid to the tribunal) towards –
(i)      the cost of remedying a breach of the agreement; or
(ii)      an amount for compensation.

As was stated in Tuendemann v JD Property (Aust) Pty Ltd:[1]

[1][2023] QCATA 153.

Tenants’ cleaning and repair obligations when a tenancy ends
[16]At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises as far as possible in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read S & L v LJ Hooker Mountain Creek and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QCAT 472
Decision Date: 18 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case between S & L and LJ Hooker Mountain Creek, the dispute revolved around the tenants' failure to vacate the premises in a timely manner and the subsequent costs incurred by the lessor. The tenants claimed that they left the property in a clean condition, but they did not return the keys to the lessor until several days later, during which time another individual occupied the property. The lessor sought compensation for various expenses, including cleaning, locksmith fees, and costs related to a mattress and the break lease. Additionally, the lessor claimed that the property agent's appearance fees were recoverable.

The court was tasked with determining whether the lessor was entitled to compensation and, if so, the extent of that compensation. The specific legal issues included whether the tenants' delay in returning the keys justified the lessor's costs and whether the gardening costs were recoverable. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the claim for compensation constituted a liquidated demand and whether the property agent's appearance fees were recoverable as part of the costs.

The court found that the tenants' failure to return the keys in a timely manner justified the lessor's costs. The tenants' claim that the property was left clean did not mitigate the delay in vacating the property. The court ruled that the lessor was entitled to compensation for the cleaning, locksmith fees, mattress, and break lease. The court also held that the gardening costs were recoverable as they were necessary to maintain the property in its rented condition. Regarding the claim for compensation, the court determined it was not a liquidated demand, meaning the exact amount was not ascertainable without a hearing. As for the property agent's appearance fees, the court found them to be recoverable as part of the costs.

The court ordered that the tenants pay the lessor the sum of $4,839, inclusive of a filing fee. Additionally, the Residential Tenancies Authority was directed to pay the $3,800 rental bond to the lessor in partial satisfaction of the compensation ordered.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The tenants are to pay the lessor the sum of $4,839 (including filing fee of $158) calculated as follows:

(a) Rent from 14 to 23 January 2025 $1,221.43

(b) Break lease - 1 week $1,045.00

(d) Mattress $500,00

(e) Locksmith $415.00

(f) Filing fee $158.00

2. The Residential Tenancies Authority is to pay the $3,800 rental bond to the lessor, in partial satisfaction of the compensation ordered in paragraph 1.

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.