Shahi v Aguilar - [2025] QCATA 117

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Shahi v Aguilar & Anor [2025] QCATA 117

PARTIES:

NIPUN SHAHI

(applicant/appellant)

v

DAVINIA COBO AGUILAR

(respondent)

JOSE BERMUDEZ

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL017-25

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

Q3824-24

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

5 November 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Goodman

ORDERS:

1.     Leave to appeal is granted.

2.     The appeal is allowed.

3.     The Orders made on 6 January 2025 are set aside.

4.     Proceeding Q3824-24 is remitted for determination by a differently constituted Tribunal.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – where Tribunal did not identify its findings or explain the basis of those findings – where failure to give adequate reasons

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld), s 32, s 142(3)(a)(i)

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act2008 (Qld), s 221, s 429

Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291
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 Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

The respondents (“the tenants”) leased a property from the applicant (“the landlord”). They were dissatisfied with the condition of the property and ultimately lodged an application in the Tribunal seeking compensation pursuant to sections 429 and 221 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act2008 (Qld) (“the Act”). The tenants claimed that the property failed to meet minimum property standards at the time they entered the lease, and that issues with the property took many months to resolve.
The matter was heard as a minor civil dispute on 22 July 2024. On 6 January 2025, the Tribunal issued a decision and written reasons. The landlord was required to pay the tenants $14,247 within 14 days. The landlord has sought leave to appeal, and if successful, to appeal against the decision of the adjudicator.
An appeal against a decision of the tribunal in a proceeding for a minor civil dispute may be made only if the party has obtained the appeal tribunal’s leave to appeal.[1]
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 142(3)(a)(i) (‘QCAT Act’).
The appeal process is not an opportunity for applicants to have their case automatically reheard or a decision reconsidered.[2] In considering whether to grant leave to appeal, the appeal tribunal considers whether:
(a)there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision;[3]
(b)there is a reasonable prospect that the appellant will obtain substantive relief;[4] and whether;
(c)leave is needed to correct a substantial injustice caused by an error;[5] 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 Shahi v Aguilar

Details

AGLC: Shahi v Aguilar [2025] QCATA 117
Case: [2025] QCATA 117
Decision Date: 5 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Shahi v Aguilar involved a dispute between the tenants, the Shahis, and the landlord, Aguilar. The tenants claimed compensation for various issues concerning the state of the property at the start of the tenancy. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) found in favour of the tenants, awarding them compensation of $14,247. Aguilar appealed the decision, arguing that the tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its findings. The appeal was heard by a higher tribunal, which had to decide whether the appeal tribunal's decision contained an error and whether the appeal met the criteria for granting leave to appeal.

The central legal issue was whether the appeal tribunal erred in its decision by not providing clear and sufficient reasons for its findings. The appeal tribunal was required to identify its findings and explain the basis of those findings. The appeal tribunal's failure to do so was considered a substantial error, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice. The appeal tribunal needed to clearly articulate the evidence it relied upon, why it preferred certain evidence over others, and how it arrived at its conclusions.

The appeal tribunal found that the reasons provided by the QCAT were insufficient. The reasons did not clearly distinguish between findings and claims made by the tenants, did not indicate which evidence was relied upon, and failed to address the landlord's submissions. The appeal tribunal concluded that the QCAT's failure to provide adequate reasons constituted a substantial error and granted leave to appeal. The appeal was allowed, and the original orders were set aside. The case was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for redetermination.

The final orders of the appeal tribunal were that leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, the orders made on 6 January 2025 were set aside, and the proceeding was remitted for determination by a differently constituted tribunal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal is allowed.

3. The Orders made on 6 January 2025 are set aside.

4. Proceeding Q3824-24 is remitted for determination by a differently constituted Tribunal.

Background

Background to the litigation

The appeal process is not an opportunity for applicants to have their case automatically reheard or a decision reconsidered.[2] In considering whether to grant leave to appeal, the appeal tribunal considers whether: (a)there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision;[3] (b)there is a reasonable prospect that the appellant will obtain substantive relief;[4] and whether;(c)leave is needed to correct a substantial injustice caused by an error;[5] or(d)there is a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage.[6] [2]Hempel v Richardson & Wrench Hervey Bay [2018] QCATA 170, [14].[3]QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.[4]Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232, 2.[5]QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.[6]Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388, 389; McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577, 577, 580.BACKGROUND The tenants moved into the home on 9 February 2024. They stated that the property was not as promised, and that their concerns were addressed over the course of the tenancy leading up to the hearing on 22 July 2024. The tenants claimed compensation for lack of cleaning, a refund of two weeks rent at the start of the tenancy, and compensation by way of a reduction in rent paid until all issues were resolved. During the hearing, the tenants outlined their complaints as to the state of the property. When the owner began to address the issues individually, the adjudicator stated:This is purely about minimum housing standards at the start of the tenancy. So that’s the issue that I will be deciding on. THE DECISION OF THE ADJUDICATOR The adjudicator states in their decision:(a)In an abundance of evidence…the property was in fact not what was promised and clearly did not meet minimum housing standards as required by the legislation. In fact, the agent…apologised for the state of the property … and said “I’m sorry you had to deal with these issues straight after the commencement of the lease.”(b)From the photographs and material provided by both parties, the property did not meet minimum housing standards at the start of the tenancy and that the lease was entered into prematurely. The respondent is responsible under section 65 of the Act to provide a condition report on or before the day the tenant occupies the premises. This was not done. Accordingly, I find the applicants’ photographs and communications persuasive. The adjudicator determined that the tenants were entitled to compensation in the amount of $14,247, as they requested. The amount was comprised of:(a)Compensation for lack of cleaning - $829;(b)Refund of two weeks rent at the start of the tenancy - $1,640;(c)Compensation for weeks 3-9 of 90% of rent paid - $5,166;(d)Compensation for weeks 10-11 of 80% of rent paid - $1,312;(e)Compensation for weeks 12-23 of 50% of rent paid - $4,920; and(f)QCAT filing fee - $380.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

During the hearing, the tenants outlined their complaints as to the state of the property. When the owner began to address the issues individually, the adjudicator stated:This is purely about minimum housing standards at the start of the tenancy. So that’s the issue that I will be deciding on. THE DECISION OF THE ADJUDICATOR The adjudicator states in their decision:(a)In an abundance of evidence…the property was in fact not what was promised and clearly did not meet minimum housing standards as required by the legislation. In fact, the agent…apologised for the state of the property … and said “I’m sorry you had to deal with these issues straight after the commencement of the lease.”(b)From the photographs and material provided by both parties, the property did not meet minimum housing standards at the start of the tenancy and that the lease was entered into prematurely. The respondent is responsible under section 65 of the Act to provide a condition report on or before the day the tenant occupies the premises. This was not done. Accordingly, I find the applicants’ photographs and communications persuasive. The adjudicator determined that the tenants were entitled to compensation in the amount of $14,247, as they requested. The amount was comprised of:(a)Compensation for lack of cleaning - $829;(b)Refund of two weeks rent at the start of the tenancy - $1,640;(c)Compensation for weeks 3-9 of 90% of rent paid - $5,166;(d)Compensation for weeks 10-11 of 80% of rent paid - $1,312;(e)Compensation for weeks 12-23 of 50% of rent paid - $4,920; and(f)QCAT filing fee - $380. There are some identified difficulties with the reasons provided by the adjudicator:(a)It is difficult to tell whether the adjudicator is, in their reasons, making findings or describing claims made by the tenants. For example, paragraph [9] states in its entirety “It did not have privacy covering for all windows.” It is not clear if that is a finding or a statement of a claim made by the tenants. Similarly, paragraph [13] states “No fixtures or fittings for a functional laundry”. (b)It is unclear whether the adjudicator relies on the apology from the real estate agent as evidence that minimum housing standards were not met. (c)The adjudicator does not identify what evidence was relied upon to make findings, and why that evidence was preferred over other evidence. (d)The adjudicator does not indicate the evidence relied upon to find that minimum housing standards were not met at the beginning of the tenancy, and does not state when the minimum housing standards were met. The landlord’s submissions that the latches on external doors were sufficient to satisfy the standards, that the laundry was attended to promptly (before the end of February) and that privacy needs were met, were not addressed by the adjudicator. (e)The landlord provided, as part of his material, a copy of an Entry Condition Report with numerous photographs attached. During the hearing the tenant stated that they had raised issues with the real estate agent and “we then also attached the signed entry condition report by us and the agents where all of these issues and conditions are maintained.” An email from the tenant to the real estate agent on 9 February 2024 states (in part) “I will send the entry report in a few days as you told me…”. In oral evidence, the tenants refer to an entry condition report “signed by the agency and us”. It is unclear how the adjudicator made the finding that no condition report was provided as required by the legislation. It was on the basis of that finding that the applicants’ evidence was relied upon. (f)While it is common ground that some issues required attending to, it is not clear how the adjudicator arrived at the percentage of rent reduction awarded, other than it being the reduction sought by the tenants, and being “reasonable in the circumstances and justified under the Act.”

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.