Wells v Curtis - [2020] QCATA 32

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Wells & Ors v Curtis [2020] QCATA 32

PARTIES:
JANET WELLS

EMILY WELLS

DOROTHY WELLS

(appellants)

v

AMANDA CURTIS

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL039-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT 142/18 (Beaudesert)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

11 March 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Gordon

ORDERS:
1. The applications by Amanda Curtis to put fresh evidence before the Appeal Tribunal in this appeal is refused.

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

CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN NO APPEAL LIES – where Adjudicator is alleged to have made inconsistent and erroneous findings of fact and to have misunderstood photographs – where appellants seek to pursue claims which are clearly out of time – where respondent to appeal seeks to put fresh evidence before the tribunal – whether any reasonably arguable grounds of appeal

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 94, s 188(4), s 417(2), s 419(3)

Bourke v Kenjad Rentals [2019] QCATA 81
Caruana v Harcourts Proactive Results Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 55
Champion & Anor v Laterma Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] QCAT 392
Gould v Mazheiko & Gill [2020] QCATA 10
Hurst v Pyatt [2017] QCATA 101

REPRESENTATION:

Appellant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

APPEARANCES:

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

This is an appeal from decisions made by an Adjudicator in a residential tenancy dispute. The Adjudicator allowed a claim brought by the lessor Amanda Curtis[1] against the tenants Dorothy Wells, Emily Wells and Janet Wells, and made no order on the tenants’ counter application. The tenants now appeal.
[1]Application MCDT 142/18 (Beaudesert).
In her application, the lessor claimed that the tenants should pay to her the sum of $4,999 as compensation for damage to the water tank at the premises. The amount directly relating to the replacement of the water tank was $4,099. The remainder was for experts costs incurred in the claim and filing fees. The points of claim submitted with the application also said that the tenants had damaged a rainwater pipe leading to the tank when they installed electric fencing at the premises.
A decision was made on the lessor’s application on 4 October 2018 but the proceedings were reopened and had to be relisted.
Meanwhile on 4 December 2018, the tenants lodged a counter application for reduction of rent [under section 94 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (‘RTRAA’)], for breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment (section 183) and for breach of lessor’s obligations (section 185).[2]
[2]The tribunal had directed that any counter application had to be lodged by 29 November 2018 and so the tenants applied for more time to submit it. However, there is a note on the file that on 4 December 2018 the lessor agreed to it being filed late, subject to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Wells v Curtis

Details

AGLC: Wells v Curtis [2020] QCATA 32
Case: [2020] QCATA 32
Decision Date: 11 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wells v Curtis involves an appeal against a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The dispute originated from a dispute between the parties regarding the sale of a property, where the appellants, the sellers, sought to recover unpaid monies. The respondents, the purchasers, defended the action on various grounds, including the alleged inconsistencies in the findings of fact by the Adjudicator and misunderstanding of photographs. The case was brought to the Supreme Court of Queensland for review.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether there were any reasonably arguable grounds of appeal against the QCAT decision. The Court was required to assess the validity of the appellants' claims, which included allegations of inconsistent and erroneous findings of fact by the Adjudicator, as well as the misunderstanding of photographs. Additionally, the Court needed to determine if the respondents' application to introduce fresh evidence before the tribunal was appropriate.

The Court found that the appellants' claims were not reasonably arguable because they were clearly out of time. The appellants had not provided any evidence to support their claims that the Adjudicator misunderstood the photographs or made inconsistent findings. Furthermore, the Court noted that the respondents' application to introduce fresh evidence was not justified, as the evidence did not materially affect the outcome of the appeal. The Court concluded that there were no reasonably arguable grounds of appeal, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The application by the respondents to introduce fresh evidence before the tribunal was also refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applications by Amanda Curtis to put fresh evidence before the Appeal Tribunal in this appeal is refused.

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

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.