ManageMe Property Management Solutions Pty Ltd v Jackson
[2025] QCATA 37
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
- ManageMe Property Management Solutions Pty Ltd v Jackson[2025] QCATA 37
- Add to List
ManageMe Property Management Solutions Pty Ltd v Jackson[2025] QCATA 37
ManageMe Property Management Solutions Pty Ltd v Jackson[2025] QCATA 37
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | ManageMe Property Management Solutions Pty Ltd v Jackson [2025] QCATA 37 |
PARTIES: | MANAGEME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (applicant/appellant) v BARBARA JACKSON (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | APL041-24 |
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S: | T341/23 |
MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
DELIVERED ON: | 15 April 2025 |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Senior Member Brown Member Burson |
ORDERS: | Leave to appeal refused. |
CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – tenancy agreement – where tenant awarded compensation on the basis premises were not clean and in good repair at the commencement of the tenancy – where the landlord and tenant agreed to early termination of tenancy – where tenant claimed compensation for relocation costs and inconvenience – whether error by adjudicator in awarding compensation – whether leave to appeal should be granted Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 13, s 142, s 146, s 147 Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 185, s 419, s 420 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 Elsing v Westgarth Realty Pty Ltd [2019] QCATA 120 Ericson v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCA 391 Hobbs v PGK Pty Ltd [2018] QCATA 156 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577 Ramsay v Fraser [2024] QCATA 72 Spalding v Filipetto [2022] QCATA 56 Thurley v Vokes & Vokes [2021] QCATA 149 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass [2009] 1 Qd R 41 |
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]This is an appeal from the decision of an adjudicator in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction.
- [2]Ms Jackson was a tenant in rented premises. She claimed that upon moving in, the property was not as had been represented by the landlord’s agent, ManageMe Property Management Solutions Pty Ltd (‘ManageMe’). Ms Jackson said that the property was dirty and damaged. Less than four weeks later Ms Jackson gave a notice of intention to leave. The parties subsequently entered into an agreement to terminate the tenancy.
- [3]Ms Jackson applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy and for an order for the payment of compensation. ManageMe also commenced proceedings in the Tribunal for an order about the payment of the rental bond. The two proceedings were heard together.
- [4]The adjudicator awarded compensation of $3,428 to Ms Jackson and ordered Ms Jackson to pay ManageMe $1,580.29 pursuant to the termination agreement.
- [5]In the final result, Ms Jackson was entitled to the repayment of the rental bond and ManageMe was required to pay Ms Jackson $1,847.71.
- [6]ManageMe appeals the decision.
The findings by the adjudicator
- [7]In order to address the grounds of appeal it is necessary to say something about the findings made by the adjudicator. Of relevance in this appeal the adjudicator found:
- The premises and inclusions were not clean and were not in good repair at the start of the tenancy contrary to s 185 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (‘RTRAA’) and clause 25 of the tenancy agreement;
- ManageMe arranged for cleaning work to be undertaken on 1 May 2023;
- ManageMe arranged for maintenance work to be undertaken on 11 April 2023;
- On 26 April 2023 Ms Jackson gave a notice of intention to leave by 10 May 2023;
- On 2 May 2023 Ms Jackson gave a notice to remedy breach which specified a remediation date of 9 May 2023;
- On 28 April 2023 the parties entered into the termination agreement.
- [8]The adjudicator noted that by the time Ms Jackson had commenced the proceeding in QCAT the tenancy had been terminated by operation of the termination agreement. The adjudicator considered the application of s 419 and s 420 of the RTRAA. The adjudicator found that there had been a breach of the tenancy agreement by ManageMe. Although not expressed thus in the reasons, it is apparent that the adjudicator was satisfied that Ms Jackson was entitled pursuant to s 419(2) of the RTRAA to apply for an order about the breach. The adjudicator noted that upon such an application, pursuant to s 420 the Tribunal could order the payment of money or award compensation.
- [9]The adjudicator noted the matters to which he had regard in assessing Ms Jackson’s entitlement to compensation. The adjudicator allowed the following amounts claimed by Ms Jackson: removal costs from the subject premises to new premises of $1,008; loss of wages for time spent looking for alternative accommodation of $1,040; distress and inconvenience $1,380.
The grounds of appeal
- [10]From the application for leave to appeal or appeal, a single ground of appeal may be identified: the adjudicator erred in the exercise of the discretion to award the respondent compensation.
Appeals – the statutory framework
- [11]Leave to appeal[1] is required from a decision in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction. In deciding whether to grant leave to appeal the following considerations are relevant:
- Is there a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision?[2]
- Is there a reasonable prospect that the applicant will obtain substantive relief?[3]
- Is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by some error?[4]
- Is there a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the appellate court or tribunal, would be to the public advantage?[5]
- [12]If leave to appeal is granted, in deciding the appeal on a question of law the Appeal Tribunal may confirm or amend the decision, set aside the decision and substitute its own decision or set aside the decision and remit the matter to the tribunal for reconsideration.[6] The Appeal Tribunal may set aside the decision and substitute its own decision only if this results in the disposition of the appeal entirely in the appellant’s favour.[7] An appeal on a question of fact or mixed law and fact must be conducted by way of rehearing.[8] The Appeal Tribunal may confirm or amend the decision, set aside the decision and substitute its own decision or set aside the decision and remit the matter to the tribunal for reconsideration.[9]
Consideration
- [13]Awarding compensation under the RTRAA is a discretionary remedy.[10] Tribunal orders must be fair and equitable as required by s 13(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2000 (Qld). It is inappropriate to restrict the right of a party to compensation under the RTRAA by analogy to an award of damages under the general law. Rather, the Tribunal should consider the injured party’s intentions and the surrounding circumstances to do justice between the parties.[11]
- [14]The principles to be applied when considering whether the exercise of a discretion has miscarried are well established. There may be error if the decision maker acts upon wrong principle, or takes into consideration extraneous or irrelevant matters, or mistakes the facts or fails to take into account a material consideration, or otherwise the result is unreasonable or plainly unjust.[12]
- [15]ManageMe says the following in support of its contention that the adjudicator erred in awarding compensation to Ms Jackson:
- the property was in a liveable state when Ms Jackson moved in;
- there were minor cleaning items which were actioned in a timely manner by the agency;
- the time spent by Ms Jackson in looking for alternative accommodation could have been undertaken outside usual working hours;
- Ms Jackson elected to vacate the premises on the basis of what ManageMe says were minor cleaning items which Ms Jackson did not give ManageMe the opportunity to address.
- [16]The evidence of Ms Jackson before the adjudicator was comprehensive. The adjudicator referred to the entry condition report on which Ms Jackson had made extensive notations identifying a significant number of issues requiring either cleaning or repair. The adjudicator also referred to a statutory declaration by a witness for Ms Jackson who deposed to the dirty and damaged state of the premises at the time Ms Jackson moved in. Attached to Ms Jackson’s originating application were a number of photographs of damaged items and items requiring cleaning at the premises.
- [17]
- [18]The representatives for ManageMe also gave evidence at the hearing about the state of the premises when Ms Jackson moved in and ManageMe’s response to the complaints made by Ms Jackson.
- [19]The role of the adjudicator was to determine the true facts of the case before him. That required the adjudicator to decide which parties’ evidence he preferred. The adjudicator accepted the evidence of Ms Jackson. It is not an error for a decision maker to prefer the evidence of one party over another. As the Appeal Tribunal has previously said:
It is not an appellable error to prefer one version of the facts to another, or to give less weight to one party’s case than he or she thinks it should receive. Findings of fact will not normally be disturbed if they have rational support in the evidence, even if another reasonable view is available. Where reasonable minds may differ, a decision cannot properly be called erroneous, simply because one conclusion has been preferred to another possible view.[15]
- [20]ManageMe says that the adjudicator failed to take into consideration that Ms Jackson chose to end the tenancy on the basis of what were minor issues which ManageMe was not given the opportunity to attend to. The evidence of Ms Jackson was that, after notifying ManageMe of the various issues and after ManageMe arranged for contractors to attend at the property, the premises remained in a dirty and damaged state.[16] The adjudicator was satisfied that ManageMe had failed to remedy the breaches of s 185(2) of the RTRAA within a reasonable time. In making this finding, the adjudicator clearly preferred Ms Jackson’s evidence which he was entitled to do. There was a rational basis in the evidence for the adjudicator’s findings of fact. There was no error by the adjudicator.
- [21]Nor was there error in the way in which the adjudicator assessed Ms Jackson’s entitlement to compensation. As referred to earlier in these reasons, compensation was awarded under three heads: moving costs, loss of wages, and distress and inconvenience. As to the moving costs, ManageMe says that Ms Jackson could have looked for properties out of work hours and during weekends. This submission rather misses the point and is more directly relevant to the award for loss of wages. ManageMe says that the adjudicator erred in awarding an amount for loss of wages. Ms Jackson gave evidence at the hearing addressing this issue.[17] It was open to the adjudicator to accept Ms Jackson’s evidence. In addition, there was evidence before the adjudicator in the form of a letter from Ms Jackson’s employer supporting the claim for loss of wages. Accordingly, the evidence supported the finding of fact that Ms Jackson had lost wages as a result of having to take steps to secure alternative accommodation. There was no error by the adjudicator.
- [22]The adjudicator referred to the applicant’s claim for compensation for distress and inconvenience. The adjudicator allowed 50% of the rent paid. This was an appropriate way to assess this part of the compensation award on the basis that Ms Jackson had paid the full rent however had not received full enjoyment of the premises for the outlay.[18] There was no error by the adjudicator.
- [23]The appellant has been unable to establish error by the adjudicator in the exercise of the discretion to award compensation.
- [24]Leave to appeal is refused.
Footnotes
[1] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2000 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) s 142(3)(a)(i).
[2] QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[3] Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232, [13].
[4] QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[5] Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388, 389; McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577, 578, 580.
[6] QCAT Act, s 146.
[7] Ericson v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCA 391.
[8] QCAT Act, s 147(2).
[9] QCAT Act, s 147(3).
[10]Elsing v Westgarth Realty Pty Ltd [2019] QCATA 120.
[11]Ramsay v Fraser [2024] QCATA 72 citing with approval Hobbs v PGK Pty Ltd [2018] QCATA 156.
[12]House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499.
[13] T1-4, line 45 to T1-8 line 17.
[14] T1-8, line 34 to T1-10, line 32.
[15]Spalding v Filipetto [2022] QCATA 56, [19]-[20].
[16] T1-10, lines 21 to 35.
[17] T1-27, lines 1 to 25.
[18]Thurley v Vokes & Vokes [2021] QCATA 149.