Thurley v Vokes & Vokes

[2021] QCATA 149

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Thurley v Vokes & Vokes [2021] QCATA 149

PARTIES:

DEAN THURLEY

(appellant)

v

VANESSA VOKES
MICHAEL VOKES

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL070-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT 01049/19 (Brisbane)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

15 December 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Gordon

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal is refused.  This means that the appeal fails.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN NO APPEAL LIES – where lessor appeals against a decision made by a panel of two justices of the peace in a residential tenancy dispute – where the grounds of appeal are that the panel did not give sufficient weight to certain things and was inconsistent in its compensation award – whether any reasonably arguable grounds of appeal

Residential Tenancy and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 94, s 416, s 417, s 419

Campbell v Donker [2013] QCATA 6

Gould v Mazheiko & Gill [2020] QCATA 10

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. In this appeal it is said that a panel of two justices of the peace was in error when deciding a residential tenancy dispute, because it gave insufficient weight to various things, and that it was inconsistent in the compensation award which was made.

2. Vanessa and Michael Vokes were tenants of a property in Taringa, and they brought a residential tenancy claim against the lessor Dean Thurley, based on repair and maintenance problems at the property.  They were successful in the claim and the panel ordered the lessor to pay them the sum of $3,438.

3. The tenancy agreement was for a fixed term running from 7 September 2018 to 5 September 2019.  The tenants left early in July 2019, by agreement with the lessor.  The rent was $1,150 a week.

Whether the claims were properly made

1. One issue which I have to deal with in this appeal is whether, for reasons not raised in the appeal, the panel had jurisdiction to make the orders it did.  One reason this needs to be examined is because the claims were brought as rent reduction claims under section 94 of the Residential Tenancy and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (RTRAA) and these are now known to be problematical in some circumstances.

2. The tenants had three heads of claim each described as ‘rent reduction - failure to repair’.  In the detail attached to the application all the claims were expressed to be made under section 94.

3. The three claims were for:

   (a)$2,047 for a problem with the lights; the amount claimed calculated as an amount per day with some additional amounts for loss of earnings and cost of wasted electricity;

   (b)$1,940 for a problem with the swimming pool; the amount claimed calculated as an amount per week plus the cost of chemicals and work done to the…