Stockdale & Leggo v Gordon

Stockdale & Leggo, the appellants, appealed against a decision of a tribunal which dismissed their claim for damages in the sum of $3,000 for breach of the covenant to repair. The respondent, Craig Gordon, had leased premises to the appellants. The appellants claimed that the floor and venetian blinds were damaged, and that they had carried out some repairs, but the respondent did not carry out any further repairs. The respondent argued that the repairs carried out by the appellants were unsatisfactory and that the premises had been relet. The tribunal dismissed the appellants’ claim, holding that they could not take into account the quotes for repairs as the repairs had not been carried out and the premises had been relet. The tribunal also told the appellants that they could apply to reopen the matter when the repairs were eventually done.

The legal issues in the appeal were whether the tribunal had erred in law in refusing to take into account the quotes to repair where the repair had not been carried out and the premises had been relet, and whether the tribunal had erred in law in its approach to the assessment of compensation for the damage to the floor and blinds. The appellants submitted that the tribunal had erred in law in refusing to take into account the quotes to repair where the repair had not been carried out and the premises had been relet. The tribunal had been wrong to say that it could not take into account the quotes because they were hypothetical and did not represent the actual cost of the repairs. The tribunal had also been wrong to say that the fact that the premises had been relet meant that the quotes were irrelevant. The appellants submitted that the tribunal had also erred in law in its approach to the assessment of compensation for the damage to the floor and blinds. The tribunal had not taken into account that the appellants had carried out some repairs and that the respondent had not carried out any further repairs. The tribunal had also not taken into account that the respondent had breached the covenant to repair.

The appeal was allowed. The tribunal had erred in law in refusing to take into account the quotes to repair where the repair had not been carried out and the premises had been relet. The tribunal had been wrong to say that it could not take into account the quotes because they were hypothetical and did not represent the actual cost of the repairs. The tribunal had also been wrong to say that the fact that the premises had been relet meant that the quotes were irrelevant. The tribunal had also erred in law in its approach to the assessment of compensation for the damage to the floor and blinds. The tribunal had not taken into account that the appellants had carried out some repairs and that the respondent had not carried out any further repairs. The tribunal had also not taken into account that the respondent had breached the covenant to repair. The matter was remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration of the claims about the floor and blinds. The claims about the floor and blinds shall be treated by the tribunal as if they were brought by counter application by Stockdale & Leggo against Craig Gordon in Maroochydore MCDT 61/17. In the remitted hearing, the tribunal may take into account the documentary material lodged in the original claim and in the appeal, and the evidence given by the parties at the hearing on 24 March 2017. A copy of the transcript and the submissions on the appeal file shall be provided to the tribunal for its remitted hearing.