Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
- Unreported Judgment
Cross v Roberts QCATA 143
Cross v Roberts  QCATA 143
On the papers
Senior Member Stilgoe OAM
30 September 2016
APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – LANDLORD AND TENANT – RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES LEGISLATION – OBLIGATIONS, PROHIBITED MATTERS AND PROTECTION FOR LESSEES – RENTAL BOND OR SECURITY DEPOSITS – Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) – where bond used for cleaning and rubbish removal – where tenant objected to cost of work – where tribunal dismissed tenant’s application – whether grounds for leave to appeal
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 142(3)(a)(i)
Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1
Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Pickering v McArthur  QCA 294
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
- Peter Cross rented a home from Neil and Carol Roberts. When he left, Mr and Ms Roberts cleaned the home, dumped some goods Mr Cross left, repaired the blinds and replaced a knob. Most of the $1100 bond was absorbed by these costs, plus some outstanding rent.
- Mr Cross filed an application for return of the bond in full. The tribunal dismissed his application.
- Mr Cross wants to appeal that decision. Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary. Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.
- Mr Cross says that the amount of $560 taken to dump two cardboard boxes was excessive. He says he took all rubbish to the dump. He says that he was not shown a receipt for the house clean and that the charge for this item was excessive.
- Mr Cross is incorrect in his submission that the tribunal allowed $560 for Mr and Ms Roberts’ actions in dumping rubbish. In fact, the Roberts claimed $102, made up of $12 dump fees and three hours labour at $30 per hour. The tribunal found this was a reasonable charge. I agree that the evidence can support the tribunal’s finding and there is no compelling reason to come to a different view.
- Mr Cross says that the Roberts could have left the rubbish at the community bin, as he intended to do, and it would have been collected in a few days. Mr Cross raised this argument before the tribunal. Mr Roberts told the tribunal that the rubbish would have to sit there for almost a week because the bins had just been collected and then refilled so that they were ‘chockers’. The tribunal was entitled to find that the Roberts’ action in taking the rubbish to the dump was reasonable and I can find no compelling evidence to justify a contrary view.
- Mr Cross conceded he did not take all his rubbish when he left the tenancy. He cannot now say that he did not leave any rubbish at the tenancy. I do not accept this ground of appeal.
- Mr Roberts produced a receipt for the house clean to the tribunal. Mr Cross told the tribunal that the cost was excessive, but he produced no evidence to support that submission. The tribunal found that the charge was reasonable and explained why. The evidence can support the tribunal’s decision and I can find no reason to come to a different view.
- There is no reasonably arguable case that the tribunal was in error. Leave to appeal should be refused.
 QCAT Act s 142(3)(a)(i).
Pickering v McArthur  QCA 294 at .
 Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 at 561; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 125-126.
 Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 at 10.
 Transcript page 1-34, line 30.
 Transcript page 1-33.
 Transcript page 1-37, lines 8 – 11.
 Transcript pages 1-7, lines 18 – 19; 1-33, lines 35 – 39.
 Transcript page 1-9, line 11.
 Transcript page 1-32, lines 30 – 34.
 Transcript page 1-32, lines 42 – 44.
- Published Case Name:
Cross v Roberts
- Shortened Case Name:
Cross v Roberts
 QCATA 143
Senior Member Stilgoe OAM
30 Sep 2016