Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2022
  4. Maddren v Hammond Village Operations trading as Gateway Lifestyle - [2022] QCAT 46

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Maddren v Hammond Village Operations trading as Gateway Lifestyle[2022] QCAT 46

Maddren v Hammond Village Operations trading as Gateway Lifestyle[2022] QCAT 46

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Maddren v Hammond Village Operations trading as Gateway Lifestyle [2022] QCAT 46

PARTIES:

Fredrick maddren

(applicant)

v

Hammond village operations trading as gateway lifestyle

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCL026-20

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

8 February 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Sammon

ORDERS:

The respondent Gateway Lifestyle is ordered to pay the applicant Fredrick Maddren the amount of $711.16 within 14 days of the date of this order in respect of sewerage charges which Gateway Lifestyle was not entitled to charge.

CATCHWORDS:

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – application of s 99 of the Manufactured Homes Residential Parks Act 2003 (Qld), whether a park owner was entitled to charge a home owner for sewerage use – meaning of ‘separately measured or metered’ CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS – application of the ‘parol evidence rule’

Manufactured Homes Residential Parks Act 2003 (Qld),    s 8, s 10, s 11, s 12, s 13, s 14, s 14A, s 73, s 99, s 99A,      s 116, schedule 2 

Codelpha Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1992) 149 CLR 337

Maddren v Gateway Lifestyle [2020] QCAT 411

Pomroy and Ors v Emmetlow Pty Ltd [2012] QCAT 492

APPEARANCES

& REPRESENTATION:

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

Introduction

  1. [1]
    Mr Maddren is a resident of Gateway Lifestyle, a manufactured homes village at Coombabah at the Gold Coast. The village is operated by the respondent, Hammond Village Operations trading as Gateway Lifestyle, which I will refer to as 'Gateway Lifestyle’.
  2. [2]
    In his application filed on 6 March 2020, Mr Maddren has applied for orders that he be refunded for charges imposed on him by Gateway Lifestyle for the utility service of sewerage charged to him from 5 October 2017 to 1 April 2018 as water charges, and for sewerage charges levied on him from 1 April 2018 to 30 September 2019 to be refunded to him.
  3. [3]
    Manufactured homes villages are regulated by the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 (Qld) (the Parks Act). Mr Maddren’s application is made on the basis that the Act does not allow Gateway Lifestyle to impose the sewerage charges on him. 

Background to the application to the Tribunal

  1. [4]
    In his application, Mr Maddren referred to the resolution reached in an earlier dispute at the Gateway Lifestyle Village at Coombabah also concerning a sewerage charge.  That matter was resolved during the course of a separate application to the Tribunal in matter OCL041-18.  In an earlier interlocutory decision in the current matter,[1] Member Cranwell decided that Mr Maddren was not a party to that earlier proceeding and therefore neither Mr Maddren nor Gateway Lifestyle were bound by that earlier resolution. 
  2. [5]
    Mr Maddren attached to his current application to the Tribunal a 'certificate of mediation outcome' dated 19 February 2020, which demonstrates that he had referred the current dispute to mediation, which was not successful in resolving the dispute, as a necessary prerequisite before applying to the Tribunal for an order in relation to a 'residential park dispute', under s 116(3) of the Parks Act.
  3. [6]
    Mr Maddren’s assertion that he was not required to pay the sewerage charges is a ‘residential park dispute' as that term is defined in s 14A(1)(c) of the Parks Act, as a dispute between the park owner and home owner under a site agreement about the parties’ rights or obligations under the agreement or the Act.

Statutory framework

  1. [7]
    There are some key terms for understanding the Parks Act. Firstly, what is a                        'manufactured home’ is relevantly defined in s 10(1) of the Act as follows:
  1. (1)
    A manufactured home is a structure, other than a caravan or tent, that—
  1. (a)
    has the character of a dwelling house; and
  2. (b)
    is designed to be able to be moved from one position to another; and
  3. (c)
    is not permanently attached to land.
  1. [8]
    A commonly understood example of a ‘manufactured home' is a mobile home.
  2. [9]
    The meaning of a 'home owner’ is contained in s 8, and relevantly for the purposes of this case, in s 8(1)(a) as follows:
  1. (a)
    a person who owns a manufactured home that is positioned on a site in a residential park under a site agreement.

Mr Maddren is a 'home owner’ within the meaning of that term.

  1. [10]
    A 'residential park’ is defined in s 12 as follows:

A residential park is an area of land that includes—

  1. (a)
    sites; and
  2. (b)
    common areas; and
  3. (c)
    facilities for the personal comfort, convenience or enjoyment of persons residing in manufactured homes positioned on sites.
  1. [11]
    Gateway Lifestyle is a 'park owner' as that term is defined in s 11(1), relevantly as follows:
  1. (1)
    A person who owns a residential park is a park owner.
  1. [12]
    The primary source of the legal relationship between a home owner in a residential park and a park owner, is the 'site agreement' defined as follows:

14 What is a site agreement

A site agreement is an agreement between a park owner and a home owner that—

  1. (a)
    provides for—
  1. (i)
     the rental by the home owner of particular land in a residential park; and
  2. (ii)
    the positioning on the land of a manufactured home; and
  3. (iii)
    the home owner’s non-exclusive use of the park’s common areas and communal facilities; and
  1. (b)
    includes provision about anything else required or permitted by this Act to be in the agreement.

Example for paragraph (b)—

provision about how site rent may be increased

  1. [13]
    The scope of a 'site agreement' as defined in s 14 would tend to suggest that it may include a home owner being charged by a park owner for use of utility services such as electricity and sewerage. However, s 99 and s 99A of the Parks Act regulate how a home owner may be required to pay the park owner for the use by the home owner of a 'utility’,[2] such as sewerage at the site occupied by a home owner.  
  2. [14]
    Section 99(2) of the Parks Act provides that a home owner may be required to pay for the use of a utility at a site only if the use is separately measured or metered. Section 99 is as follows:

99 Separate payment by home owner for use of utility at site

  1. (1)
    This section applies if, under a site agreement, the home owner is required to pay the park owner for the use by the home owner of a utility at the site.
  2. (2)
    The home owner may be required to pay for the use only if the use is separately measured or metered.

(added emphasis)

Mr Maddren relies on s 99(2) in his application to the Tribunal seeking a refund.

  1. [15]
    ‘Separately measured or metered’ in s 99(2) must mean that the use of a utility at a home owner’s site is measured or metered separately from other sites in the village concerned, and the village as a whole.
  2. [16]
    Section 99A(2) relevantly provides that park owner must not charge the home owner an amount for the use of a utility that is more than the amount charged by the relevant supply entity for the quantity of the service supplied to, or used at, ‘the site.’ That is, the amount charged by a park owner to a home owner must not exceed the amount charged by the relevant supplier applicable to the individual site occupied by the home owner. 
  3. [17]
    Mr Maddren also places reliance on s 73 of the Parks Act which as far as relevant is as follows:

73 Utility cost in site rent

  1. (1)
    This section applies if—
  1. (a)
    the use by the home owner under a site agreement of a utility at the site is not separately measured or metered; and
  2. (b)
    either of the following events (a change event) happens—
  1. (i)
    the home owner’s use of the utility becomes separately measured or metered and the cost of the use becomes payable by the home owner;
  2. (ii)
    [not relevant].
  1. (2)
    The park owner must within 14 days after the change event happens give the home owner a notice (a utility cost notice) stating the following—
  1. (a)
    the utility cost factored into the site rent payable under the agreement and how the utility cost has been worked out;
  2. (b)
    the date the change event happened;
  3. (c)
    the site rent payable from that date;
  4. (d)
    if the home owner disputes the utility cost [s 73 then sets out required procedures to be followed by the home owner to resolve the dispute].

Maximum penalty—10 penalty units.

(added emphasis)

  1. [18]
    Section 73(3) then goes on to provide that the site rental payable is to be reduced by the ‘utility cost’ stated in the utility cost notice. Section 73(4) provides that any overpayment of site rent, relating to the utility cost, must be refunded by the park owner.
  2. [19]
    The primary purpose and effect of s 73 is to require a park owner to give a 'utility cost notice’ to a homeowner when a 'change event' happens, and to describe the consequences of a utility cost notice. However, a secondary effect is that s 73 acknowledges that a park owner may charge a home owner for 'utility costs' in the site rental payable under a site agreement, if the use of a utility is not separately measured or metered at the home owner’s site. This is also made clear by the definition of 'utility cost’ in the Dictionary to the Parks Act which is as follows:

utility cost means a cost, for a utility supplied to or used at a site in a residential park, that the park owner incorporates into the site rent payable under a site agreement for the site, whether or not the cost is separately identified in the agreement.

  1. [20]
    The important difference between s 73 and s 99, is that s 99(2) allows for a home owner to be charged for the home owner’s individual use of a utility at the site occupied by a home owner only if the use of the utility at the site is measured or metered.  
  2. [21]
    Member Fiona Fitzpatrick described the combined effect of s 73 and s 99 in Pomroy and Ors v Emmetlow Pty Ltd[3] to be that the park owner cannot 'double dip' by charging both a new separate charge for utility consumption (under s 99) and the original charge for utility consumption incorporated into the site rent (contemplated by s 73). I respectfully adopt that reasoning. 
  3. [22]
    The potential questions for the Tribunal to determine, are therefore:
    1. (a)
      Whether the site agreement between Mr Maddren and Gateway Lifestyle allowed Gateway Lifestyle as park owner to recover sewerage charges from Mr Maddren;
    2. (b)
      Whether Mr Maddren was separately measured or metered for the sewerage charge;
    3. (c)
      Whether the sewerage charge imposed by Gateway Lifestyle exceeded the amount charged by the relevant supplier applicable to Mr Maddren’s site.

First issue - whether the site agreement allowed recovery of sewerage charges

  1. [23]
    Mr Maddren attached to his application to the Tribunal a copy of a letter to him from Gateway Lifestyle dated 22 November 2019. That letter sets out an extract from the site agreement with Mr Maddren in which Gateway Lifestyle states that sewerage is noted as a charge that the home owner agrees to pay. The letter sets out the text of the site agreement, Annexure A (Special Terms), clause 2 ‘Utilities’, the relevant part of which is as follows:

2.1 The Home Owner agrees to pay all charges for the supply or use of electricity gas water drainage and sewerage to the site while the Home Owner occupies the site if those services are separately metered.

  1. [24]
    In a statement filed in the Tribunal on 9 June 2021 in support of Gateway Lifestyle’s case, Linda Nicastri, Community Manager for Gateway Lifestyle provided the Tribunal and Mr Maddren with a full copy of the site agreement between Mr Madden and Mrs Iris Maddren, and Gateway Lifestyle dated 16 October 2017. That agreement includes clause 2.1 as set out above in Annexure A - Special Terms of the site agreement. 
  2. [25]
    Mr Maddren does not dispute this content of his site agreement. In his statement and submissions filed with the Tribunal, he does not mention clause 2.1 at all. In his statement filed with the Tribunal on 12 May 2021, he does refer to Part 1 (schedule) of the site agreement, which in section 6 refers to 'Costs for utilities and services'. For the ‘Service/utility’ of water, section 6 states that water was not included in the rent for the site. That section does not mention sewerage.
  3. [26]
    In that statement, and other documents filed by Mr Maddren with the Tribunal, he also refers to a conversation he had with the manager of the village in September 2017 when he made inquiries about living in the village and about how water usage was to be charged. However, the contents of the site agreement, including clause 2.1 must speak for themselves. The effect of the parol evidence rule in the law of contract means that I cannot take into account what the parties say which would have the effect of varying the contents of a written contract.[4]
  4. [27]
    I am satisfied that the site agreement included clause 2.1 which allowed Gateway Lifestyle to charge Mr Maddren for sewerage services if those services were separately metered. 

Second issue - whether Mr Maddren was separately measured or metered for the sewerage charge

  1. [28]
    Mr Maddren attached to his application to the Tribunal two accounts issued by Gateway Lifestyle headed ‘Water Billing’, dated 30 November 2017 and 30 April 2018. The account dated 30 November 2017 lists an item described as 'COM water usage’ for 10 kilolitres (‘kl’) at the rate of $7.02kl. There is no reference to a sewerage charge on that account. 
  2. [29]
    By contrast, the account dated 30 April 2018 includes a specific item for sewerage but at the rate of $3.12/kl and an amount of usage of 10kl, amounting to $31.20. The account also indicated a rate for water usage of $3.90/kl.
  3. [30]
    Both accounts contain the entry 'Arrival Date: 06 Oct 2017' which I infer to be the date when Mr Maddren arrived at the park and the site agreement commenced. That is confirmed by a statement made by Mr Maddren in a submission by him filed on 24 April 2020 that he took up a site at the village from 5 October 2017. 

Factual background to sewerage charges

  1. [31]
    In Mr Maddren’s statement filed with the Tribunal on 12 May 2021, he said that he had a conversation with Mr John Anderson, Area Manager of the park owner in December 2017, who told Mr Maddren that all residents who moved into the village after December 2016 would be charged for sewerage use.   
  2. [32]
    Mr Maddren attached to his statement a letter dated 26 April 2018 from Mr. Anderson addressed to residents of the village, which relevantly says as follows:

Commencing 1st April 2018, Gateway will commence to pass on the cost of waste water (sewerage) to residents at the same rate charged to the park by Gold Coast City Council. This will be additional to water charges and will be separately itemised on your invoice.

The charge will be calculated as follows: 

State bulk water price: $2.81/kl plus Gold Coast surcharge $1.09/kl

Water charge equals $3.90/kl

Gold Coast sewerage (waste water) charge of @ $4.45/kl reduced by 70%

Waste water (sewerage) equals $3.12

Total to be charged = $7.02/kl from January 2019 quarter

  1. [33]
    I note that those rates equate to the rates contained in the account provided by              Mr Maddren dated 30 April 2018. In total, those rates also add up to the rate of $7.02/kl contained in the account dated 30 November 2017. That amount appears to be the combined rate for both water and sewerage use, suggesting that the account dated 30 November 2017 charged for both water usage and sewerage usage.
  2. [34]
    The submissions filed by Gateway Lifestyle dated 9 June 2021 refer to the outcome of an agreement following a compulsory conference in proceeding OCL41-18 on 6 September 2019, discussed above. The previous decision of Member Cranwell was that Mr Maddren was not a party to that proceeding. However, in the written submissions dated 9 June 2021,[5] Gateway Lifestyle said that it had agreed to not on- charge the utility service of sewer for all homeowners from 1 October 2019.
  3. [35]
    That approach is confirmed in Ms Nicastri’s statement in that she says[6] that she ceased on-charging the sewer component of the water utility for Mr Maddren from 1 October 2019 to adhere to the OCR041-18 compulsory conference agreement. She also confirmed that she had credited the appropriate sewerage charges to Mr Maddren’s account for any overcharges of the sewer component since 1 October 2019. Of course, the claim made by Mr Maddren in the current case pre-dates 1 October 2019 and seeks a claim for refund of the sewerage charges from 5 October 2017 to 30 September 2019.
  4. [36]
    In his statement filed with the tribunal on 12/9/2021, Mr Maddren refers to and attaches part of[7] a Deed of Agreement which the park owner sent to residents to sign following the agreement reached in OCL041-18. The purpose of the Deed of Agreement was to amend the site agreements to make allowance for the agreement reached in OCL041-18. Neither party produced to the Tribunal a copy of the Deed of Agreement signed by both parties. However, the Deed of Agreement contains representations by Gateway Lifestyle about its position on the sewerage charges. In its submission dated 9 June 2021,[8] Gateway Lifestyle says that Mr Maddren has not formally rejected variation of the site agreement consistent with the Deed of Agreement.
  5. [37]
    Relevant paragraphs of the Deed of Agreement are as follows:

C.[9]  The Home Owner’s usage of water and sewer at the Site is not included in the site rent payable by the Home Owner under the Site Agreement (such that the Home Owner must pay the Park Owner for the Home Owner’s usage of water and sewer at the Site.

E.[10]  The [agreement in OCL041-18] provides that the Park Owner:

…

(b) will not charge the QCAT Home Owners[11] for their usage of sewer.

1.1(b) From 1 October 2019, the Park Owner will not charge the Home Owner for the Home Owner's usage of sewer at the site; and the Home Owner is not required to pay the Park Owner for the Home Owner’s usage of sewer at the Site. To avoid doubt, this does not affect the Home Owner’s liability to pay the Park Owner for the Home Owner’s usage of sewer at the Site up to 30 September 2019.   

  1. [38]
    Charges for the use of sewerage which is the subject of the last sentence in clause 1.1(b) are the charges which Mr Maddren challenges in the present proceeding.

Gateway Lifestyle’s calculation for sewerage charges

  1. [39]
    Gateway Lifestyle’s explanation for how it calculates the sewerage charges is contained in its submission filed 9 June 2021[12] as a process as follows:
    1. (a)
      Gateway Lifestyle reads the onsite meter located at the site on a monthly basis;
    2. (b)
      Gateway Lifestyle compares the previous monthly read to determine the usage for that month;
    3. (c)
      Gateway Lifestyle refers to the Water and Sewerage Rates Notice issued from the local authority to determine the rate per kilolitre charge; then
    4. (d)
      Gateway Lifestyle multiplies the determined usage of the Site by the rate per kilolitre advertised by the local authority to arrive at the on-charge figure which is itemised in a home owner’s internal invoice;
    5. (e)
      In this instance, Gateway Lifestyle separates water usage, which is metered at the site, and sewer volume, which is measured[13] using the local authority’s property discharge factor of 70%.

Gateway Lifestyle attached to the submission a copy of the water and sewage account issued by the Gold Coast City Council to Gateway Lifestyle for the period 1 July 2018 to 30 September 2018. 

  1. [40]
    That account shows that the charge for sewerage is calculated by multiplying the total water usage by a 'Property Discharge Factor' of 70%. A discount to the volume of total water usage is then applied for a ‘Domestic Usage Allowance’ for a particular volume expressed in kilolitres, then a charge applied at a rate of $4.45 per kilolitre for the sewerage charge.
  2. [41]
    The multiplication rate of 70% appears to represent a discount for water coming into a property which does not find its way into the sewerage system through toilet, bath and shower water, kitchen sink and clothes washing. For example, the discount would recognise incoming water used that does not find its way into the sewerage system for garden watering and washing vehicles.
  3. [42]
    The method for calculating the sewerage charge used by Gateway Lifestyle set out above is consistent with what Mr Maddren says in several places in his documents filed with the Tribunal that although he appears to accept that the water volume entering his site is metered, there is no meter for each site that records the discharge to sewerage from the site.[14]
  4. [43]
    In its written submissions filed on 9 June 2021, Gateway Lifestyle contends that the calculation methodology set out above is how the Queensland Department of Housing and Public Works has advised the home park industry on how to on-charge water utility services in its ‘Information Bulletin - s 99A', which was attached to the submission.
  5. [44]
    The Information Bulletin includes the text of s 99A and then sets out an example of how a charge for water supply may be calculated by averaging out the rate (that is, $ per kl) of water supply in a park. The example relies upon the volume of water being read from a meter. That is, the example does not describe a range of ways in which the volume of water consumed may be calculated. It does not have application to the issue in the present case which is about how the volume of sewerage used is metered or measured.  
  6. [45]
    Gateway Lifestyle put some emphasis on a statement in the Bulletin which says 'The Act does not inhibit park operators from using alternate methods to calculate separate utility charges'. However, in the context of the example given, that statement is about how the rate for the supply may be calculated, and not about the volume used. 
  7. [46]
    Overall, Gateway Lifestyle submits that it on-charges water usage, which is metered at the site and on-charges sewer volume, which is measured using the local authority’s property discharge factor of 70%.[15]

Analysis of Gateway Lifestyle’s submissions on sewerage charges

  1. [47]
    In his submission filed on 24 June 2021, Mr Maddren submits that the method Gateway Lifestyle uses for charging for sewerage is the 'Councils Deemed Rate. (An estimate)’. He says that the volume of sewerage 'is not measured or metered at my site[16] as is required by the [Parks Act]’.  
  2. [48]
    There is merit in what Mr Maddren says about calculation of the volume of sewerage used. There is no doubt that water use at Mr Maddren’s site is metered, within the meaning of s 99 of the Parks Act. However, Gateway Lifestyle does not contend that the volume of sewerage used is metered. Instead, it submits that the volume of sewerage used is measured, by applying the 70% factor contained in the Council’s water and sewerage account. 
  3. [49]
    The term 'measured' is not defined in the Parks Act. It will have its ordinary meaning which, in the relevant senses described by the Macquarie Dictionary[17] is '1. ascertained or apportioned by measure. 2. accurately regulated or proportioned.’ The common factor to these meanings is precision.  By contrast, the Gateway Lifestyle method is to adopt the 70% factor used by the Council in its billing for sewerage charges, which appears to be simply an approximation of the amount of water entering a property recorded by meter, which is eventually discharged into the sewerage system. The Council does not purport to measure that amount. Moreover, the volume of sewerage is not separately measured at a home owner’s site as required by s 99(2) of the Parks Act. 
  4. [50]
    Accordingly, I find that the method used by Gateway Lifestyle to charge for sewerage use does not fall within the scope of s 99 of the Parks Act.
  5. [51]
    Further, the method used by Gateway Lifestyle does not fall within the basis in the site agreement for charging for sewerage use, contained in clause 2.1 of the Special Terms, since that is only an obligation for a home owner to pay for sewerage 'if those services are separately metered'. On any view of it, the sewerage use at Mr Maddren's site was not metered.
  6. [52]
    The result is that Gateway Lifestyle was not entitled to separately charge Mr Maddren for sewerage use at his site under s 99. Gateway Lifestyle may have been able to incorporate sewerage use into the rent paid as contemplated by s 73 of the Parks Act, but that is not the basis upon which Gateway Lifestyle charged Mr Maddren for sewerage use. Accordingly, Mr Maddren is entitled to a refund of the sewerage charges for the relevant period. In those circumstances, it is not necessary for me to answer question (c) set out in paragraph [22] above.

Quantum of Mr Maddren’s claim

  1. [53]
    In a written submission filed on 24 April 2020, Mr Maddren claimed the amount of $664.54 as the refund sought, but without calculating how he arrived at that amount. He did set out a calculation in his submission filed on 12 May 2021 which is calculated in two components:
    1. (a)
      From 5 October 2017[18] until 1 April 2018,[19] where he says he was overcharged for water (which at that time, included the sewerage charge as well), by $3.12 per kl,[20] in the amount of $177.84; and
    2. (b)
      For the period 1 April 2018 to 30 September 2019,[21] $533.52. 
  2. [54]
    Those amounts total $711.16, not $664.54. I am satisfied that the basis of Mr Maddren’s calculation set out above is correct, but not the addition he arrived at. I will therefore order that Gateway Lifestyle refund the amount of $711.16 to Mr Maddren.

Footnotes

[1] Maddren v Gateway Lifestyle [2020] QCAT 411.

[2]  A ‘utility' is defined in the Dictionary (schedule 2) to the Parks Act to mean services for electricity, gas, sewerage, water, or another service prescribed under a regulation.

[3]  [2012] QCAT 492 [59].

[4]  Seddon NC and Ellinghaus MP, Cheshire and Fifoot's Law of Contract, (9th Australian edition, 2008), LexisNexis Butterworths, Sydney at [10.4], referencing Codelpha Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1992) 149 CLR 337.

[5]  Paragraph 20.

[6]  In paragraph 21.

[7]  Mr Maddren filed a full copy with the Tribunal attached to his earlier submission dated 24 April 2020.

[8]  Paragraphs 21-22.

[9]  ‘Background’ clause.

[10]  ‘Background’ clause.

[11]  Defined to be the parties to OCL005-18 and OCL041-18.

[12]  Paragraph 26.

[13]  Emphasis in original in each case.

[14]  Response submission filed 24 June 2021 and submission filed on 22 June 2020, page 2.

[15]  Submissions filed 9 June 2021, paragraph 43. Emphasis in each case in original.

[16]  Emphasis in original.

[17]  Delbridge A and others (editors), (2nd edn, 1991), The Macquarie Library, Sydney, 1104.

[18]  When he commenced residence at the village.

[19]  When Gateway Lifestyle commenced separately charging for sewerage use.

[20]  That rate reflects the rate which Gateway Lifestyle said it would charge for sewerage use in the letter dated 26 April 2018 from Mr. Anderson of Gateway Lifestyle as described above. Elsewhere in his written submissions, Mr Maddren demonstrates how the rate charged for water in this first period was for a total of $7.02 per kl, when the water rate charged by the Council was $3.90 per kl with the balance of $3.12 per kl being for sewerage use - see his submission filed 24 June 2021, page 1 and his submission dated 24 April 2020, page 5. 

[21]  Mr Maddren’s submission uses the date 30 September 2018, but this appears to be an error for 30 September 2019, since Gateway Lifestyle said it would not separately charge home owners for sewerage from 1 October 2019, as described above.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Maddren v Hammond Village Operations trading as Gateway Lifestyle

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Maddren v Hammond Village Operations trading as Gateway Lifestyle

  • MNC:

    [2022] QCAT 46

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Sammon

  • Date:

    08 Feb 2022

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Codelpha Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1992) 149 CLR 337
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1992) 149 CLR 337
Cite 2 - (1992) 149 CLR 337
Maddren v Gateway Lifestyle [2020] QCAT 411
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCAT 411
Cite 2 - [2020] QCAT 411
Pomroy and Ors v Emmetlow Pty Ltd [2012] QCAT 492
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 492
Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 492

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Hammond Village Operations Pty Ltd t/as Gateway Lifestyle v Maddren [2023] QCATA 352 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.