Sleight v Shaw - [2014] QCATA 67

CITATION:

Sleight & Anor v Shaw & Anor [2014] QCATA 067

PARTIES:	Phillip Sleight Tracey Sleight (Applicants/Appellants)
V
Robert Shaw Kathryn Ingle (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL239 -13

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Thomas, President

DELIVERED ON:

4 April 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. The decision of 27 May 2013 is set aside.

4. Phillip and Tracey Sleight shall pay Robert and Kathryn Ingle $112 within 21 days of the date of this judgment.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where respondents’ application to release bond was successful – where applicants made a counterclaim for rent arrears – where tribunal ordered relief from rental arrears and refused compensation for bond clean – where the renal agreement provided that the property be professionally cleaned – where there was evidence that the property was clean at the commencement of the tenancy – whether leave to appeal should be granted – whether the learned Magistrate erred in finding that the respondents were not liable for the cost of having the property cleaned – whether appeal should be allowed

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 3(b), 32
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) ss 94, 414A, 419

Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR, cited Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549, cited
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118, cited

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294, cited

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The appeal tribunal heard and determined this matter on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

Mr Shaw and Ms Ingle rented a home in Bundaberg from Mr and Mrs Sleight. The property was flooded twice in February 2013. Although the house itself was not affected, the flood did affect access and services to the house. Mr Shaw and Ms Ingle vacated the home in March 2013. They did not pay rent for the last nine days of their tenancy.
Mr Shaw filed an application for release of the bond. Mr and Mrs Sleight’s agent at the time, Bluant Rentals, filed an application for rent arrears. The bond was released to Mr and Mrs Sleight and a Magistrate, sitting as an ordinary member of the tribunal, ordered Mr and Mrs Sleight pay Mr Shaw and Ms Ingle $882. He also ordered that Mr Shaw and Ms Ingle were relieved from paying $752.29 rent for the period 25 February 2013 to 26 February 2013, and from 27 February 2013 to 18 March 2013.
Mr and Mrs Sleight want to appeal the learned Magistrate’s decision. They say that he erred in finding that Mr Shaw and Ms Ingle were not responsible for a bond clean of $770. They say that the learned Magistrate erred in giving Mr Shaw and Ms Ingle rent relief.

Leave to appeal

Because this is…

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 Sleight v Shaw

Details

AGLC: Sleight v Shaw [2014] QCATA 67
Case: [2014] QCATA 67
Decision Date: 4 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sleight v Shaw, the applicants, Phillip and Tracey Sleight, sought leave to appeal a decision made by a tribunal regarding a dispute with the respondents, Robert and Kathryn Ingle. The central issue was the release of a bond and the counterclaim for rental arrears. The tribunal had ordered relief from the rental arrears but refused the applicants' compensation for the cleaning of the property. The rental agreement stipulated that the property must be professionally cleaned, and there was evidence indicating the property was clean at the commencement of the tenancy.

The applicants argued that the learned Magistrate had erred in concluding that the respondents were not liable for the cost of cleaning the property. They claimed that the property was not clean upon their departure and that the respondents should bear the cost of professional cleaning. The court needed to determine whether the learned Magistrate's decision was correct and if the applicants were entitled to compensation for the cleaning costs. The applicants also sought leave to appeal the tribunal's decision on the bond release and rental arrears.

The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The reasoning involved a thorough examination of the evidence presented and the terms of the rental agreement. The court found that the evidence did not support the applicants' claim that the property was not clean upon their departure. It was established that the property was clean at the start of the tenancy and remained so throughout. Therefore, the tribunal's decision not to award compensation for cleaning costs was upheld. However, the court also ruled that the tribunal's decision regarding the bond release and rental arrears was incorrect, necessitating the setting aside of the previous decision.

The final orders of the court included granting leave to appeal, allowing the appeal, setting aside the tribunal's decision dated 27 May 2013, and requiring Phillip and Tracey Sleight to pay Robert and Kathryn Ingle $112 within 21 days of the judgment date.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. The decision of 27 May 2013 is set aside.

4. Phillip and Tracey Sleight shall pay Robert and Kathryn Ingle $112 within 21 days of the date of this judgment.

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.