Oliver v Waterfront Management Pty Ltd
[2021] QCATA 147
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Oliver v Waterfront Management Pty Ltd[2021] QCATA 147
- Add to List
Oliver v Waterfront Management Pty Ltd[2021] QCATA 147
Oliver v Waterfront Management Pty Ltd[2021] QCATA 147
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Oliver & Anor v Waterfront Management Pty Ltd [2021] QCATA 147 |
PARTIES: | DANIEL FREDERICK OLIVER & ROSWITHA MARIA OLIVER |
(applicants) | |
v | |
waterfront management pty ltd | |
(respondent) | |
APPLICATION NO: | APL368-20 |
MATTER TYPE: | Residential tenancy matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 2 December 2021 |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Dr J R Forbes |
ORDERS: | The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. |
CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – residential tenancy matter – liability to pay water rates Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32, 143 Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) Form 18a Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Drew v Bundaberg Regional Council [2012] QPELR 350; [2011] QCA 359 Felton and Anor v Raine and Horne Real Estate [2011] QCATA 330 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 International Professional Services v Tritone Nominees Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 332 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41 Robinson v Corr [2011] QCATA 302 Sali v SPC Limited (1993) 67 ALJR 841 |
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
- [1]The burning question is whether the appellants (`the Olivers’) owe the lessor of a home unit at Biggera Waters, Gold Coast, (`the premises’) an amount of $141.95 (including costs) for water charges allegedly incurred by the Olivers while they occupied those premises.
- [2]
- [3]
- [4]
- [5]Other pertinent provisions of the lease appear in Part 1 Cl 12.2, and in Part 2 Cl 17 (water charges). The first of these provisions reads: `Is the tenant to pay for water supplied to the premises? See clause 17’. And the answer given is `Yes’.
- [6]These proceedings were commenced by the agent on 16 July 2020. A counterclaim was signed by the Olivers on 3 August 2020, but was not pursued at the hearing. Nor is it reagitated in the application for leave.[7]
- [7]
- [8]Nevertheless, the Olivers now contend that there is no acceptable evidence to support the two water usage claims in issue.[10] Amid some confused and confusing submissions it does not seem to be suggested that the amounts claimed have been falsified or inflated; indeed, on the contrary, the rates charged correspond exactly with the current rate set by the local authority.[11] There is no profit-taking.
- [9]The Olivers contend that the criminal standard of proof applies.[12] That is, of course, a fundamental error. According to the civil standard, the learned Adjudicator was clearly entitled to find, as he did,[13] that the agent correctly and reliably calculated the amounts in issue, by reference to information supplied by the local authority. There is no evidence, as distinct from bald assertions, to the contrary. The Adjudicator accepted the agent’s evidence as to the method of calculation, including water usage in the final, incomplete period of occupation. As judge of fact that was a decision that he was well entitled to take, and, as the High Court emphasises, it is not open to me, on an application for leave to appeal, to re-try a primary decision reasonably and properly made.[14] Questions of fact and credit are essentially matters for the trial judge[15], not for `second guessing’ by an appeals court.
- [10]A party seeking leave to appeal must demonstrate a legally appellable error in the primary decision.[16] That is something that the present appellants have signally failed to do. It is not nearly enough for an applicant to express disappointment, or to entertain a subjective feeling that justice has not been done.[17] Indeed, the very requirement to obtain leave[18] to appeal is to preclude attempts to retry cases on the merits.
- [11]Obscurely the first appellant asserted that, in some unexplained manner, the agent’s calculations were made unlawfully and in breach of unspecified legislation governing Gold Coast Council water meters, but several commendably patient attempts by the Adjudicator to discover a basis for this contention elicited nothing more informative than: `It doesn’t matter about the Act. I will be using another section of the law that I have at home.’[19]
- [12]This application for leave to appeal a judgment for $141.95 is a baseless, if not frivolous use of the Tribunal’s resources, while more meritorious causes await a hearing.[20] No arguable ground for a successful appeal has been shown. Accordingly the application must be dismissed.
ORDER
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Footnotes
[1] General Tenancy Agreement (Form 18a) 9 September 2018 Part 1 Cl 1.1 (`the lease’).
[2] Decision recorded in transcript of hearing 10 November 2020 page 23 line 46 (`T’).
[3] Gold Coast City Council rate notices dated 17 February 2020 and 10 August 2020; T page 20 line 32.
[4] Lease Part 1 Cl 3.1, Part 3 agent’s signature.
[5] Lease Part 2 Cl 43(2).
[6] T page 20 lines 32-33.
[7] Filed 7 December 2020.
[8] Invoice 1302 for $84.05 and invoice 1383 for $30.95.
[9] Eg 9 March 2020, 21 October 2019, 28 June 2019: Tenant Payment History from 29 September 2018 to 15 July 2020.
[10] T page 18 lines 35 ff.
[11] T page 7 line 1; page 9 line 34; page 11 line 12; page 14 line 33; page 20 line 1.
[12] T page 17 line 46.
[13] T page 24 lines 20 ff.
[14]Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at [28]-[29]; Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 at 479.
[15] “That is his function”: Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 at 151 per Kirby P.
[16]QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41; [2008] QCA 257 at [6]; Drew v Bundaberg Regional Council [2012] QPELR 350; [2011] QCA 359 at [18]; Felton and Anor v Raine and Horne Real Estate [2011] QCATA 330 at [19]; International Professional Services v Tritone Nominees Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 332.
[17]Robinson v Corr [2011] QCATA 302 at [7].
[18] QCAT Act s 143(1).
[19] T page 21 line 30.
[20] See the strictures of the High Court in Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 at 217; Sali v SPC Limited (1993) 67 ALJR 841 at 843-844.