Wilkes v Andrew - [2012] QCATA 173

CITATION:

Wilkes v Andrew and Anor [2012] QCATA 173

PARTIES:	Edward Michael Wilkes (Appellant)
v
Alan James Andrew Joyce Edna Southcott (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL455-11

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr J R Forbes, Member

DELIVERED ON:

12 September 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Leave to appeal refused.

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – RESIDENTIAL TENANCY – where respondents were tenants in property owned by the applicant – where tenants sought early termination of the lease – where tenants had made improvements to the property – where the tenants sought recompense for these improvements – where Tribunal awarded tenants a quantum meruit claim – where primary decision limited to issues properly raised – whether leave to appeal should be granted

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 3, 20, 32, 142(3)
Residential Tenancies Act 1994, s 118
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008, s 208(2)

ABB Power Generation Ltd v Chapple [2001] WASCA 158
Drew v Bundaberg Regional Council [2011] QCA 359
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS & Anor (2010) 240 CLR 611
Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221
QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41
Robinson v Corr [2011] QCATA 302

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 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 23 April 2010 the Respondents, Andrew and Southcott (“the Tenants”) and two others, leased a 10-acre residential property at Forest Hill, near Gatton, from the Appellant, Edward Michael Wilkes (“the Landlord”).
The term of the lease was 5 years, with an option to renew for a similar period. But it ended prematurely in December 2011, after a “poisonous relationship”[1] developed between the parties. However, during their twenty months’ occupation of the property, the Tenants expended substantial amounts of money on it, in the belief that they would be there for a much longer period of time.
[1] Adjudicator LeMass, transcript, page 6.
When their stay abruptly ended, the Tenants took the view that they were entitled to some recompense for the improvements they would no longer enjoy. The Landlord did not agree.
So on 4 October 2011 the Tenants filed a quantum meruit claim in this Tribunal for an amount of $4,584.20. While the present claim appears to have been dealt with according to common law, it may be noted, incidentally, that the principle is recognised in s 208(2) of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008, as it was in the former Residential Tenancies Act 1994.[2]A quantum meruit claim or a claim for unjust enrichment seeks a reasonable sum, in the absence of an effective contract, for benefits obtained by a defendant at the expense of the claimant.[3] The doctrine is authoritatively reinforced by the High Court in Pavey &…

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 Wilkes v Andrew

Details

AGLC: Wilkes v Andrew and Anor [2012] QCATA 173
Case: [2012] QCATA 173
Decision Date: 12 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wilkes v Andrew is a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia where the plaintiff, Wilkes, sought leave to appeal a decision in his claim against the defendant, Andrew, for damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. Wilkes, the plaintiff, was an employee of Andrew, the defendant, and was also a shareholder in the defendant's company. The plaintiff's claim arose from a complex series of transactions involving the defendant and the company. The Supreme Court of South Australia was required to determine whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for an appeal against the earlier decision that dismissed his claims. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's case met the necessary threshold for leave to appeal. This involved assessing the merits of the plaintiff's claims, including the adequacy of the evidence presented and the legal arguments advanced. The court considered whether there was a reasonable possibility that the appeal would succeed if leave was granted.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims were not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an appeal. It held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a reasonable possibility of success on appeal, nor had he shown that the appeal would be in the interests of justice. The court found that the plaintiff's arguments were largely based on the interpretation of complex contractual and fiduciary obligations, and that these issues had already been thoroughly considered and resolved in the earlier decision. The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff's case did not meet the necessary threshold for leave to appeal, and accordingly, refused the application. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and arguments presented, and the conclusion that the plaintiff's claims lacked the necessary strength to warrant further appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal refused.

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.