Shahi v Aguilar
[2025] QCATA 117
•5 November 2025
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 388Hempel 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 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.
DID THE DECISION MAKER ISSUE ADEQUATE REASONS?
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.”
The Tribunal has previously considered the issue of the adequacy of reasons. The approach taken by the Tribunal is as set out in Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291, which has been cited in numerous subsequent decisions:
The QCAT Act requires the Tribunal to give reasons for its final decision. Those reasons need not be lengthy or elaborate, but they must contain three essential elements: appropriate and sufficient reference to the relevant evidence; the material findings of fact that were made (and the reasons for making those findings); and, the applicable law and the reasons for applying it in the way expressed in the decision. It has also been said, in Queensland, that the crucial requirement is for the Tribunal to give reasons which disclose what has been taken into account in a way that means that any error is revealed.
In this case, the reasons do not contain appropriate and sufficient reference to the relevant evidence. It is not sufficient to state that a finding that the property did not meet minimum housing standards was made “from the photographs and material provided by both parties”. There is no reference to which photographs and other material was relied upon to make specific findings in relation to the issues raised. The Tribunal must explain the basis of its findings with sufficient particularity for parties to understand how and why the findings were made.
I am not satisfied that the adjudicator has provided reasons for making findings of fact. The adjudicator has not disclosed which parts of the evidence was relied upon to make findings, except to say that the condition report was not provided by the landlord, and so the tenants’ photographs and communications were persuasive. As noted above, both parties make reference to the provision of a condition report, and the matter was not clarified at the hearing. The adjudicator does not explain how they reached the conclusion that no condition report was provided.
As a matter of natural justice, adequate reasons for a decision must be given. The reasons for decision provided by the adjudicator are not adequate. That is an error of law. Leave to appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice. Leave to appeal is granted and the appeal is allowed.
0
3
2