Winn v GP Realty - [2010] QCATA 47

CITATION:

Winn v GP Realty [2010] QCATA 47

PARTIES:	Julene Winn (Applicant)
v
GP Realty (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL098 -10

MATTER TYPE:

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Alan Wilson, President

DELIVERED ON: 15 September 2010

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: Application for leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS :

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES – COMPENSATION – where applicant vacated premises – where applicant sought return of bond – where adjudicator dismissed applicant’s claims for compensation for renting a private mailbox, and for loss of income and additional expenses associated with attending hearings – where adjudicator awarded respondent with compensation for cleaning expenses – whether adjudicator erred in dismissing the applicant’s compensation claims or in awarding respondent compensation for cleaning expenses

PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – where applicant alleged that adjudicator failed to provide adequate reasons and failed to properly weigh the evidence – whether adjudicator gave sufficient reasons for conclusions – whether conclusions supported by evidence

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 3(b), 28(2), (3) and (4), 94(1)(a), 142(3)(a)(i), 145(1)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009, r 43
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008, s 419(3)

Attorney-general v Kehoe [2001] 2 Qd R 350, cited
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321, followed
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232, cited
Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1, cited

Commissioner of Taxation v Baffsky [2001] NSWCCA 332, cited
Dornan v Riordan (1990) 95 ALR 451, distinguished

Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388, cited
Maynard v West Midlands Regional Health Authority [1984] 1 WLR 634, cited
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577, cited
QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41, cited
TNT Management Pty Ltd v Brooks (1979) 53 ALJR 267, followed
Tully v McIntyre [2001] 2 Qd R 338, cited

Wright v VCAT and Anor [2001] VSC 35, distinguished

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ms Julene Winn is a former tenant in residential premises at Kingsmill Street in Chermside which were managed, on behalf of the owners, by GP Realty during the course of the tenancy, but are now managed by Place Estate Agents Nundah. Her tenancy commenced in February 2009. A subsequent history of conflict between the parties culminated in several proceedings in the former Small Claims Tribunal and, later, before QCAT.

There is no need to fully address their history. Ms Winn had previously been issued with two Notices to Leave for vacant possession and following her failure to leave GP Realty initiated various proceedings against her in the former tribunal which were ultimately dismissed. Undeterred, GP Realty issued a third Notice to Leave sometime in October 2009 with which Ms Winn complied; according to her own words “... I decided I’d had enough and I would leave”.

The date for vacant possession was 23 December 2009. Relations between the parties continued 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 Winn v GP Realty

Details

AGLC: Winn v GP Realty [2010] QCATA 47
Case: [2010] QCATA 47
Decision Date: 15 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Winn v GP Realty, the applicant, Winn, sought the return of their bond after vacating the premises. The dispute involved claims for compensation for renting a private mailbox, loss of income, and additional expenses incurred from attending hearings. The respondent, GP Realty, was awarded compensation for cleaning expenses by the adjudicator, who dismissed the applicant’s claims. The applicant contested the adjudicator's decisions, alleging errors in dismissing their compensation claims and in awarding the respondent compensation for cleaning expenses.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the adjudicator erred in dismissing the applicant’s claims for compensation and in awarding the respondent compensation for cleaning expenses. Additionally, the applicant raised concerns about procedural fairness, arguing that the adjudicator failed to provide adequate reasons and did not properly weigh the evidence presented. The court had to determine whether the adjudicator's reasons were sufficient and whether the conclusions were supported by the evidence.

The court examined the adjudicator's decision and found that the reasons provided were adequate and that the conclusions were supported by the evidence. The court held that the adjudicator did not err in dismissing the applicant’s claims for compensation for renting a private mailbox, loss of income, and additional expenses, as there was insufficient evidence to support these claims. Regarding the compensation awarded to the respondent for cleaning expenses, the court found that the adjudicator's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The applicant’s concerns about procedural fairness were also dismissed by the court, which concluded that the adjudicator provided sufficient reasons for their conclusions.

Consequently, the court refused the applicant’s application for leave to appeal. The decision of the adjudicator stood, and the respondent was entitled to the compensation awarded for cleaning expenses.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for 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.