Tapp v Howarth-Hockey

CITATION: Tapp v Howarth-Hockey [2013] QCATA 72

PARTIES:	Aaron Tapp (Applicant/Appellant)
V
Gemeah Howarth-Hockey (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL416 -12

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 5 March 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1. Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE  - RESIDENTIAL TENANCY MATTER – where agent nominated as address for service – where agent appeared at hearing – where lessor added as a party – whether agent authorised to act for lessor – whether grounds for leave to appeal

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 137, s 138

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008, s 206

Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404, applied

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.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Ms Howarth-Hockey rented a property owned by Mr Tapp and managed by Place Real Estate. From the day Ms Howarth-Hockey moved in, the pool chlorinator did not work.  Two weeks after she moved in, the downstairs area of the house flooded and there were ongoing maintenance issues. She issued a notice to remedy breach and a notice of intention to leave in May and did, in fact, leave that month. Ms Howarth-Hockey brought a claim for compensation.  The Tribunal added Mr Tapp as a party and then ordered that “the respondent” pay Ms Howarth-Hockey $9,105.

2. Mr Tapp wants to appeal that decision. He says that he was not the original respondent to the application. He says that the claim was against Place, because of its misrepresentation. He had information that would have assisted Place in the response to the claim and he wants to put that information to the Tribunal. Mr Tapp says that he did not authorise Place to represent him at the hearing.

1. Because this is an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal in its Minor Civil Dispute jurisdiction, leave is necessary. Leave to appeal will ordinarily only be granted where there is some question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage; or, there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision and a reasonable prospect that the applicant would obtain further substantive relief.  Another question sometimes asked is: is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant, caused by some error?

1. The central question in this application is whether Place represented Mr Tapp at the hearing and whether it was authorised to do so.

1. On or before the day a tenant starts occupying a premises, the lessor or the lessor’s agent must give the tenant a written notice stating the lessor’s name and address for service or, if the agent is authorised to stand in the lessor’s place,…