Sampson v Leite - [2025] QCATA 98

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Sampson & Anor v Leite [2025] QCATA 98

PARTIES:

ANDREW SAMPSON

(applicant)

ARIA LIVING PTY LTD

(applicant)

v

ANNA RACHEL LEITE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL037-25

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

Q5215-24

MATTER TYPE:

Residential tenancy matters

DELIVERED ON:

27 October 2025

HEARING DATE:

Heard and determined on the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member McLean-Williams

ORDERS:

The Application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – leave to appeal – minor civil dispute – residential tenancy dispute – circumstances wherein tenant issued Notice to remedy breach for helicopter noise, and no action taken by agent, resulting in tenant issuing Notice to leave – validity of Notice to leave upheld by Adjudicator – questions on appeal regarding the validity of the Notice to leave in these circumstances – whether legal error discernible – where leave to appeal refused

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142(3)(a)(i)

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 183, s 185, s 277, s 420

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Chai Bricks 2 Pty Ltd v Averill & Anor [2025] QCATA 79
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
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
Saxer v Hume [2022] QCATA 25

Smart State Vehicle Rental Pty Ltd v Tri Asset Protection Systems Pty Ltd [2013] QCATA 16

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

By an Application for leave to appeal or appeal filed on 31 January 2025 (‘the Appeal Application’), the Applicants seek leave to appeal, and to appeal, a decision of Adjudicator Murphy made on 4 December 2024 in relation to a residential tenancy dispute.
The Applicants had sought orders from Adjudicator Murphy requiring the Respondent tenant to pay them $3,055.72 as rent arrears, together with $302.50 for cleaning, and a further amount of $759 as a ‘break lease’ fee. However, the effect of the orders made by Adjudicator Murphy on 4 December 2024 was to dismiss the Applicants claim for rental arrears and for payment of the break lease fee, and to allow only the $302.50 claim for cleaning costs.
Also on 31 January 2025, the Applicants commenced a related Application, seeking an extension of time for the filing of the Application for leave to appeal or appeal (‘the extension of time application’).
The learned Adjudicator’s decision was made orally on 4 December 2024, and on 5 December 2024 the Applicants had requested a transcript of those oral reasons, which was provided to them on 7 January 2025. Pursuant to s 143(3) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act

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 Sampson v Leite

Details

AGLC: Sampson v Leite [2025] QCATA 98
Case: [2025] QCATA 98
Decision Date: 27 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Sampson v Leite, the dispute arose from a residential tenancy agreement where the Respondent, Leite, issued a Notice to Remedy Breach for the noise caused by helicopters landing at the hospital, which was affecting her sleep and mental health. The Applicants, Sampson, failed to take any action despite the complaint, leading to Leite issuing a Notice to Leave. The Adjudicator found that the Notice to Leave was valid and terminated the tenancy agreement. The Applicants appealed the Adjudicator's decision, arguing that the Adjudicator had erred in finding that the Notice to Leave was valid. The Appeal Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the Adjudicator's decision contained a discernible legal error and whether leave to appeal should be granted.

The Appeal Tribunal considered whether the Adjudicator had erred in finding that the Notice to Leave was valid. The Tribunal noted that the lessor's duty to ensure the tenant's quiet enjoyment required more than refraining from deliberate interference; it also required the lessor to investigate conditions within their control that substantially interfered with the tenant's peace and comfort. Given the Applicants' failure to inspect the apartment after the complaint about the noise, the Tribunal found that this constituted a breach of the lessor's duty under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act (RTRA Act). The Tribunal also found that the Applicants' arguments regarding section 277 of the RTRA Act were not relevant because a tenancy agreement can be terminated by an order of the Tribunal, which had occurred in this case. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the Adjudicator's consideration of the impact of the helicopter noise on the Respondent's mental health was relevant to an assessment of habitability and did not amount to an error of law.

The Appeal Tribunal refused the Application for leave to appeal, finding no discernible legal error in the Adjudicator's decision. The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicator's finding that the Notice to Leave was valid and that the Applicants were in breach of their duties under the RTRA Act. Consequently, the Applicants' claims for unpaid rent and re-letting costs were dismissed, and the Tribunal ordered that a cleaning fee of $302.50 be paid to the Applicants.

Orders

Orders of the court

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

In submissions received by the Appeal Tribunal on 6 October 2025 the Respondent submits (here paraphrasing):(a)The Lessor’s duty to ensure the Tenant’s quiet enjoyment extends beyond refraining from deliberate interference, and also requires that a landlord investigate any conditions within their control that substantially interfere with a tenant’s peace and comfort.(b)When the Respondent complained in March 2024 about severe noise and vibration from helicopters landing at the hospital, the building manager refused to inspect the apartment and investigate whether triple-glazing fitted in other apartments in the complex was either missing, or defective, in this apartment.(c)Section 185 of the RTRA Act requires the lessor to ensure that the premises are fit for habitation, and that the premises remain in good repair. Therefore, the Applicants’ failure to inspect the apartment, in light of the Respondent’s complaint about noise, is a breach of s 185.(d)Failure by the Applicants to respond to the form 11 Notice to Remedy Breach meant that the Respondent was thereafter entitled to issue a Form 13 Notice of Intention to Leave. The learned Adjudicator had found that the Form 13 was valid.(e)The Applicants’ arguments in relation to the effect of s 277 of the RTRA Act are not to the point, because one of the ways in which a residential tenancy agreement may be brought to an end is by way of an order of the Tribunal. Here, the learned Adjudicator had found that the Notice of Intention to Leave had been validly issued, and terminated the agreement.(f)The learned Adjudicator having considered the impact of helicopter noise on the mental health of the Respondent was relevant to an assessment of habitability for purposes of s 185 of the RTRA Act, and does not amount to an error of law.(g)The Applicants’ claims for unpaid rent and re-letting costs overlook that the power to order compensation (RTRA Act s 420(1)(e)) is discretionary. The learned Adjudicator correctly exercised the discretion not to order compensation, in circumstances in which the Applicants were found to have been in breach of s 183 and s 185 of the RTRA Act.Appeal Tribunal Consideration In oral reasons given on 4 December 2024, the learned Adjudicator said:She [the Respondent] soon found out that the helicopter traffic to the Mater Hospital was such that it was impacting her sleep patterns and her mental health, and she did eventually raise this with the applicant. The applicant did nothing to actually validate her concerns or her complaints about the noise and was instructed by the owner not to do anything in relation to that matter. …it seems to me that she validly signed a Form 13, which raised an issue which would, in my view, require the owner to look at the issue of the right of a tenant to have peace – a peaceful – occupy the premises in such a way as it wouldn’t be disturbed by that sort of a noise on a regular basis. The lessor could’ve, for instance, have looked at the issue of whether the apartment or the location of the apartment or some further improvements could be done in relation to the complaint made by the respondent. The agents did nothing in that regard at all.It seems to me that – therefore that the respondent has given a valid form of notice, which means that the claim for rent past 27th of May has to be refused. On the basis of the material placed before me, I find that the applicant is entitled to a cleaning fee of $302.50. So, the orders will be that the RTA is to pay the sum of 302.50 to the applicant, and the remainder to the respondent. Thank you, ladies.[9][9]Transcript, 4 December 2024, at pp. 1–2, lines 15–35.