Wong v Pie & Wood

Case [2014] QCATA 50


CITATION: Wong v Pie & Wood [2014] QCATA 50
PARTIES: Alice Wong
Leon Wong
(Appellants)
v
Tayla Pie
Alexandra Wood
(Respondents)
APPLICATION NUMBER: APL556-13
MATTER TYPE: Appeals
HEARING DATE: On the papers
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: Dr J R Forbes, Member
DELIVERED ON: 24 March 2014
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:

1.    Leave to appeal is granted.

2.    The appeal is allowed.

3.    The orders made by the Tribunal on        3 December 2013 are varied to read as follows:

It is ordered that the Respondents pay to the Applicants the sum of $6,486.29 made up as follows:

Rental arrears of $5,350.00
Filing fee $101.40
Compensation in the amount of $3,174.89

Less bond paid to Lessors $2,140.00.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR  CIVIL DISPUTE – RESIDENTIAL TENANCY DISPUTE – where lease terminated for non-payment of rent – where re-letting at lower rent – whether lessors entitled to damages for reduction in rent from date of new lease to date when respondents’ lease was due to expire – whether landlords’ entitled to damages for re-letting expenses – whether tribunal erred in dismissing either or both of those claims – whether those claims are a compensable consequence of lessees’ breach – whether leave to appeal should be granted – whether appeal should be allowed

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 32, 45
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 70

Abdullahi v Taxi Council of Queensland Incorporated & Anor [2011] QCAT 374
Byrne v Kinematograph Renters’ Society Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 762
Chang v Moyer [2013] QCAT 70
Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 64
Green v Nanango Bowls Club Inc [2002] QSC 201
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341
Lorca v Holts’ Corrosion Control Pty Ltd [1981] Qd R 261
Oakley v Baille [2013] QCATA 282
Parker v Parker [2010] QCAT 235
Professional Atherton Real Estate v Newton and Bond [2010] QCATA 117
Stainton v Footlong Subs Employment Services Pty Ltd [2011] QCAT 186
Toowong Units Pty Ltd v Beal [2011] QCAT 366

Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158

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. The appellants (“the landlords”) made a fixed term agreement[1] with the respondents (“the tenants”) to lease premises in Wickham Street, Fortitude Valley, from 29 March 2013 to 28 March 2014. Somewhat surprisingly, the agreement is not in evidence, but apparently it was in the form of a general tenancy agreement (Form 18a) under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (“the RTRAA”), with no special terms.

    [1]Within the meaning of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 70.

  2. The rent payable by the tenants fell into arrears.  A termination order, effective on 20 September 2013 was executed on 3 October 2013.

  3. On 5 November 2013 the landlords commenced proceedings against the…

Continue reading Wong v Pie & Wood

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Wong v Pie and Wood [2014] QCATA 50
Case
[2014] QCATA 50
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wong v Pie & Wood involved a residential tenancy dispute between the landlords and tenants. The landlords sought damages from the tenants for the loss of rental income and re-letting expenses after terminating the lease for non-payment of rent and re-letting the property at a lower rent. The tribunal dismissed the landlords' claims, finding they were not a compensable consequence of the tenants' breach of lease. The landlords sought leave to appeal the tribunal's decision.

The legal issues before the court were whether the tribunal erred in dismissing the landlords' claims for loss of rent and re-letting expenses, and whether those claims were a compensable consequence of the tenants' breach of lease. The court also needed to decide whether the tribunal's decisions were affected by errors of law, and whether an injustice would be done if the tribunal's orders were allowed to stand.

The court found that the tribunal had erred in law in dismissing the landlords' claims. The loss of rent and re-letting expenses were a direct consequence of the tenants' breach of lease by failing to pay rent. The landlords were entitled to compensation for the lost income and re-letting costs. Therefore, leave to appeal was granted, and the appeal allowed. The tribunal's orders were varied to include compensation of $6,486.29 for rental arrears, filing fee, and compensation less bond paid.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal is allowed.

3. The orders made by the Tribunal on 3 December 2013 are varied to read as follows:

It is ordered that the Respondents pay to the Applicants the sum of $6,486.29 made up as follows:

Rental arrears of $5,350.00

Filing fee $101.40

Compensation in the amount of $3,174.89

Less bond paid to Lessors $2,140.00.

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

The tenants’ response to the application for leave was filed on 9 January 2014. It attempts to re-open the termination proceedings, a question that cannot be entertained at this stage. It offers new[20] (and irrelevant) evidence about Pie’s failure to pay her share of the rent, and misconduct on the latter’s part that need not be detailed here. But it simply does not deal with the issues raised by the application for leave, namely the loss resulting from the lower rent, and the re-letting fee. Accordingly it requires no further discussion here.[20]In the sense of evidence which (if relevant) could and should have been adduced at the trial.Conclusions For the reasons set out above, I consider that the rejections of the landlords’ claims for loss of rent ($1882.15) and re-letting expenses ($495) are affected by errors of law, and that an injustice would be done if those decisions were allowed to stand. Accordingly leave should be granted, the appeal allowed, and appropriate variations to the existing orders made. I decline to award filing fees for this application. As the learned Adjudicator recognised, the landlords’ prospects of enforcing the award are not particularly promising. So the result of this appeal may well be academic. Nevertheless, it must be decided on its legal merits.Orders1. Leave to appeal is granted2. The appeal is allowed3. The orders made by the tribunal on 3 December 2013 are varied to read as follows: It is ordered that the Respondents pay to the Applicants the sum of $6,486.29 made up as follows:Rental arrears of $5,350.00Filing fee $101.40Compensation in the amount of $3,174.89Less bond paid to lessors $2,140.00.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.