To v Choi

To v Choi is an appeal against the decision of a QCAT Tribunal concerning a retail shop lease dispute between the landlord and tenant. The main issue in the litigation was whether the lease was in respect of 148 square metres as specified in the written lease, or whether it related only to an area of 44 square metres as alleged by the landlord. The landlord sought a declaration that the lease was only in respect of the 44 square metres, and the tenant sought a declaration that the lease was in respect of the 148 square metres. The Tribunal found in favour of the tenant and ordered the landlord to deliver up possession of the balance of the 148 square metres demised premises over which it had denied the right of possession to the tenant, and to pay the tenant $10,000.00 by way of compensation for a failure to allow quiet possession of the whole of the demised area. The landlord appealed against the compensation order on the grounds that the tenant had not specifically sought compensation for a failure to allow quiet possession of the whole of the demised area, that there was no evidence that the tenant was not allowed quiet possession of the whole of the demised area, that the Tribunal ignored the evidence that the tenant had possession of the whole of the demised area, and that the Tribunal provided inadequate reasons for the decision. The court found that the tenant had fully litigated the issue of quiet enjoyment of the disputed area, and that the compensation award was justified by the facts found. The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the tenant's claim for compensation was sufficiently pleaded or litigated before its determination, that there was evidence supporting the Tribunal's findings, that the Tribunal's reasons were adequate, and that it was open to the Tribunal to award $10,000.00 as damages for breach of the obligation to deliver possession, or as damages for breach of the quiet enjoyment obligation.

The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the tenant's claim for compensation was sufficiently pleaded or litigated before its determination, that there was evidence supporting the Tribunal's findings, that the Tribunal's reasons were adequate, and that it was open to the Tribunal to award $10,000.00 as damages for breach of the obligation to deliver possession, or as damages for breach of the quiet enjoyment obligation. The court also held that it was in this instance open to the tenant to contend that the judgment appealed from may be properly upheld on a basis different from that stated by the primary Tribunal, and that the challenged judgment for $10,000.00 was sustainable as an assessment of mesne profits. However, the court found that such a procedure would be otiose and unnecessary, and that the only necessary order was "appeal dismissed".