Waldron v Lott

[2014] QCATA 238

CITATION: Waldron v Lott [2014] QCATA 238

PARTIES:	Linda Waldron (Applicant/Appellant)
V
Suellyn Lott (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL170 -14

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Senior Member Stilgoe, OAM

DELIVERED ON: 14 August 2014

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.    Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – whether grounds for leave to appeal

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Ms Waldron was a tenant in a property owned by Ms Lott. At the end of the tenancy, Ms Lott filed a claim for compensation for rent arrears, cleaning and rectification costs. Two Justices of the Peace, sitting in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the tribunal, ordered the bond be released to Ms Lott for $552.86 rent arrears and $77 cleaning.

2. Ms Waldron wants to appeal the decision about the rent arrears.  She says, simply, the tribunal’s calculation was wrong.

3. Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.[1] Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.[2]

   [1]QCAT Act s 142(3)(a)(i).

   [2]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 at [3].

1. The appeal tribunal will not usually disturb findings of fact on appeal if the evidence is capable of supporting the conclusions.[3]  An appellate tribunal may interfere if the conclusion is ‘contrary to compelling inferences’ in the case.[4] 

   [3]Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 at 561; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 125-126.

   [4]Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 at 10.

1. In deciding whether rent was owing, the learned Justices did not have the benefit of a rent ledger. Instead, they had a pile of almost 60 internet banking receipts and the direct evidence of the tenant and lessor. Ms Lott submitted that Ms Waldron had not paid her rent consistently two weeks in advance. Ms Waldron submitted that she was two weeks in advance.

2. To their great credit, the learned Justices adjourned the hearing and calculated the rent for the whole period to the tenancy by reference to the 60 or so receipts. They accepted that Ms Waldron’s evidence was more comprehensive[5] but they found the receipts confirmed Ms Lott’s version of events.

   [5]Transcript page 1-71, lines 21 – 23.

3. Ms Waldron has provided copies of the rent receipts to the appeal tribunal. She has also provided a list of the dates on which payments were made. But she has not provided a ledger which matches her obligation to pay rent against the actual payments. Unless Ms Waldron can point to a specific error, it is not the appeal tribunal’s task to revisit the learned Justices’ work on the off chance that their calculation was in error.

1. There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Justices were in error. Leave to appeal should be refused.