Eggeling v Alleaume [2026] QCATA 4

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Eggeling v Alleaume [2026] QCATA 4 PARTIES: ROSEANNA MAREE EGGELING (applicant/appellant) v KRYSTIE NICOLE ALLEAUME (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: APL088-23 ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S: MCDT83/22 (Hervey Bay) MATTER TYPE: Appeals DELIVERED ON: 16 February 2026 HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Judicial Member Rinaudo AM ORDERS: IT IS THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL THAT: Leave to appeal is refused. The application for leave to appeal or appeal is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – residential tenancy matter – where appellant alleges failure to provide procedural fairness, factual and legal errors by magistrate – where grounds insufficiently particular – whether it was open to magistrate to make findings – leave to appeal refused – application dismissed Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 137, s 188, s 420(1)(e) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 100, s 102, s 142(1), s 146, s 147 Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 Chetcuti v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 112 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 -- 1 of 8 -- 2 Ericson v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCA 391 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 JM v QFG and KG [1998] QCA 228 Lee v Lee; Hsu v RACQ Insurance Limited; Lee v RACQ Insurance Limited [2018] QCA 104 McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577 Ramsay v Earl [2025] QCATA 29 Robinson v Corr [2011] QCATA 302 Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v McDermott [2016] HCA 22 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [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 of a decision in a residential tenancy matter. The lessor Ms Alleaume lodged an application on 7 September 2022 claiming general damages for breach of the tenancy agreement, on the basis the tenants did not leave the property in good condition, fair wear and tear excepted. [2] Ms Alleaume claimed sums for water consumption charges, bond cleaning, garden maintenance and damage to the garden, replacement of a kitchen drawer insert and a shower curtain, a stain on the kitchen carpet, and the costs of the application including printing costs, totalling $1,266.35. [3] The matter was initially heard at the Hervey Bay Magistrates Court on 13 December 2022. That hearing was adjourned and directions were made for the parties to file further submissions by affidavit. The matter was then heard and decided on 17 January 2023. The respondents did not attend the hearing. [4] The respondents were ordered to pay $663.20 in total to the applicant for the bond clean, gardening costs, a replacement light globe and the cost of the filing fee. [5] A further order was made on 27 January 2023 that the Residential Tenancies Authority (‘RTA’) pay the bond to the parties ($663.20 to the applicant and $776.80 to the respondent). [6] One of the tenants, Ms Eggeling, appealed the decision on 28 March 2023. By directions made 20 July 2023 the appellant was given leave to rely on an amended appeal application filed 10 July 2023 containing further grounds. The tenant appeals the decision on the following bases: (a) The magistrate made several factual errors, asserting that: (i) The tenants had filed only one affidavit, when they had filed two; -- 2 of 8 -- 3 (ii) Matthew Eggeling, one of the tenants and the first respondent, had filed nothing and taken no part in the proceeding, when he had filed an affidavit requesting Roseanna Eggeling represent him in the proceeding; (iii) the affidavit was served on Ms Alleaume on 30 November, when it had been served on 28 November; (iv) Ms Eggeling had insisted that, in the course of a dispute concerning mould on the premises, Ms Alleaume use only natural products to clean the mould due to Ms Eggeling’s allergies, and Ms Eggeling resiled from this claim under cross-examination. In fact, Ms Eggeling informed Ms Alleaume that she had no relevant allergy on 23 June 2023, well before the hearing. Evidence was provided for this point in the form of an email correspondence between the parties, but the magistrate failed to consider this; (v) Ms Eggeling had no objection to a cleaner using bleach to clean the property, but unreasonably objected to Ms Alleaume using it. Here, Ms Eggeling asserts on 25 May 2022 she encountered Ms Alleaume apparently about to spray bleach on the ceiling. She was concerned about the possible health effects of spraying bleach in a residence with an infant and animal present. She was also concerned about the possible effects on her belongings. She was subsequently informed the mixture Ms Alleaume planned to spray was a mixture of vinegar and baking soda, and she did not object to its use. Ms Eggeling states her principal concern is the use of strong chemicals without adequate preparation, and this was the source of her objection to Ms Alleaume using bleach. She writes ‘irrelevant information was used by Magistrate Trinity McGarvie in the reasons for deciding the orders’. (vi) there was no evidence Ms Eggeling had significant medical issues consequent of the mould on the premises. Ms Eggeling would have tendered evidence to this effect, but the magistrate did not ask that it be provided to the court; (vii) no overwhelming mould difficulty was observable on the premises. However, upon exiting the property large areas of the walls, windowsills, ceilings, fans and lightshades were contaminated by mould, and the yard had become stagnant due to inadequate stormwater drainage; (b) Irrelevant information was taken into account in making the decision: the appellant was called ‘dramatic’ and accused of false, misleading and manipulative behaviour, and of seeking forensic advantage over her landlord; (c) Regarding the cleaning charge of $160, it was contrary to the law for the respondents to be effectively charged with the cost of cleaning the mould along the walls, windowsills, ceilings, fans and lightshades. On the appellant’s entry into the premises the mould had to be cleaned. The law is that the landlord cannot expect tenants to leave the property in better condition than when they entered it. (d) Regarding the garden maintenance charge of $350, on the appellant’s arrival the garden was filled with debris which the appellant cleaned up before her departure. Large portions of the yard had become stagnant pools due to -- 3 of 8 -- 4 inadequate drainage. The magistrate made a comment about the yard being overgrown, but the tenants were still charged for maintenance due to the landlord’s failure to maintain the property. The evidence of the condition of the property upon entry was not considered by the magistrate. (e) The tenants were charged, contrary to law, for the price of a replacement light globe and light globe starter, but the light globe worked and did not need replacement; (f) It was not morally right or fair that the tenants were charged for the application filing fee. [7] The appellant also claims the cost of the appeal filing fee, $376, as part of her appeal application. Appeals in the Appeal Tribunal [8] An appeal is not a rehearing and is not an opportunity to tender further evidence in an attempt to further argue the original dispute. It is an application concerning a legal or factual error made by a decision-maker.1 [9] A party to a proceeding may appeal to the Appeal Tribunal against a decision of the Tribunal in the proceeding.2 Leave is required if the appeal involves a question of fact or mixed law and fact.3 The principles to be applied in considering whether leave to appeal should be granted are: (a) Is there a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision?4 (b) Is there a reasonable prospect that the applicant will obtain substantive relief?5 (c) Is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by some error?6 (d) 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?7 [10] 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.8 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.9 An appeal on a question of fact or mixed law and fact must be conducted by way of rehearing.10 The Appeal Tribunal may confirm or amend the 1 Ramsay v Earl [2025] QCATA 29 [19]. 2 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 142(1) (‘QCAT Act’). 3 Ibid s 142(3)(b). 4 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41. 5 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 [13]. 6 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41. 7 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. 8 QCAT Act s 146. 9 Ericson v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCA 391. 10 QCAT Act s 147(2). -- 4 of 8 -- 5 decision, set aside the decision and substitute its own decision or set aside the decision and remit the matter to the tribunal for reconsideration.11 Respondent’s submission [11] Ms Alleaume emailed the Tribunal on 20 July 2023 advising she had no intention of filing a response in the appeal proceeding, on the basis that the transcript of the original hearing and the insufficiencies in the appellant’s application would suffice to have the appeal dismissed. The respondent has not filed substantive submissions in this proceeding. I will now consider the appellant’s submissions. Assertions of magistrate’s factual errors [12] The grounds asserted at paragraph [5](a)(i) and (ii) of these reasons, concerning the number of affidavits filed and the non-participation of Matthew Eggeling, are irrelevant errors for the purpose of an appeal. It is true that two affidavits were filed, but one of those is an affidavit of Matthew Eggeling which contains no substantive submissions whatsoever. It merely informed the Tribunal and parties that Mr Eggeling did not intend to personally appear at the hearing on 13 December 2022 and gave authorisation for Ms Eggeling to appear and make submissions on his behalf. This affidavit was Mr Eggeling’s only submission in the proceeding. I find it highly likely the magistrate was speaking generally, not literally, in saying that only one affidavit was filed and Matthew Eggeling filed nothing in the proceeding. The magistrate was referring to the filing of substantive submissions, i.e. submissions that went to supporting the claim in dispute. These statements by the magistrate are not appellable errors. [13] I can discern no basis in the transcript of the hearing or the reasons to determine that the magistrate’s belief Ms Eggeling’s affidavit was served on Ms Alleaume on 30 November rather than 28 November (paragraph [5](a)(iii) above) made a substantive difference to the magistrate’s decision. This, too, is not an appellable error. [14] I will discuss the grounds at paragraph [5](a)(iv) and [5](a)(v) in a later section of these reasons. [15] I turn now to the ground at paragraph [5](a)(vi), that the magistrate did not ask for evidence of the respondent’s medical issues resulting from the mould buildup. Ms Eggeling asserts this as a ground of appeal, but states ‘The issue of the mould affecting mine and my family’s health is irrelevant to deciding the reasons for the orders’. Logically, this means Ms Eggeling discounts her own submission as a ground of appeal. However, acknowledging that both parties in this matter were self- represented, and to clarify necessary standards for evidence provided to the Tribunal, I will briefly consider this argument. [16] The issue that seems to be raised by this submission is that the magistrate’s failure to ask for evidence from a self-represented party, where that party is not familiar with the law and may be unaware of the need to provide evidence to prove their claims, may constitute a failure to provide procedural fairness.12 [17] In the Tribunal parties must make their own case, and support that case with relevant evidence. The Tribunal cannot lead a party along or instruct a party in constructing 11 QCAT Act s 147(3). 12 Chetcuti v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 112. -- 5 of 8 -- 6 their case. If Ms Eggeling wished to assert she had suffered medical issues as a result of the mould buildup, it was her responsibility to tender evidence to this effect. Further, directions issued on 21 October 2022 ordering the parties to make submissions noted ‘any documents relied on must be exhibited to an affidavit of a relevant witness’ and non-compliance with that direction could prevent a party relying on any material not disclosed to the other party. I am satisfied there has not been a failure to provide procedural fairness in this instance. [18] The ground at [5](a)(vii) is that the magistrate decided there was no significant mould remaining on the premises when in fact mould remained on the windows and windowsills on the tenants vacating the property. I will deal with this ground later in these reasons. Irrelevant information taken into account [19] The grounds at paragraph [5](a)(iv) and [5](a)(v) relate to comments made by the magistrate during the hearing. They are effectively a particularisation of the ground at [5](b). [20] In these grounds the appellant asserts the magistrate took various irrelevant statements into account in making the order. The magistrate stated that Ms Eggeling was unpersuasive, being evasive, non-responsive to direct questioning and overly dramatic in her presentations to the court, and that she provided false and misleading information to Ms Alleaume and engaged in manipulative behaviour toward the landlord. [21] The statements that Ms Eggeling had resiled from her earlier position that she had an allergy to chemical cleaning products, and that she objected to Ms Alleaume’s use of chemical products, were intended by the magistrate as examples of this behaviour. [22] In the context of the reasons, these statements concerned the magistrate’s earlier observations of the appellant (at the hearing on 13 December 2022) under cross- examination. The statements were effectively the reasons the magistrate preferred, where a witness’ credibility was in issue, the evidence of Ms Alleaume to that of Ms Eggeling. This was relevant in two instances: the evidence about the condition of the property at the tenants’ entry and exit (though this was ultimately decided by the magistrate’s independent observations), and the evidence about the light globe. [23] It is open to a magistrate to make determinations about a witness’ credibility. The credibility of a witness necessarily affects the weight a magistrate will give to that witness’ evidence. Charges ‘contrary to law’ [24] The grounds at [5](c), (d) and (e) assert the magistrate made orders contrary to law. The tenants state they left the property in a cleaner state than how it was on their entry, as regards the mould growth and the garden, and that the payment for a replacement light globe was unnecessary. [25] Relevantly a tenant is obligated to leave the premises and inclusions, as far as possible, in the same condition they were in at the start of the tenancy, fair wear and tear excepted. Where this is not done the Tribunal has the power to order the payment of -- 6 of 8 -- 7 the bond to the lessor as compensation.13 The orders made were not in themselves contrary to law. [26] Was the power to make those orders rightfully exercised? [27] It is not an appellable error to prefer one version of the facts to another or to weigh a party’s submissions with more or less weight than the party thinks it ought to receive. If a factual finding has rational support on the evidence, even if another rational view is available this is not a ground for appeal. A decision cannot be called erroneous simply because one rational explanation has been preferred to another.14 Indeed, to choose between multiple competing rational arguments is an essential part of a Tribunal member’s role. [28] In Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd15 the Tribunal stated: If there is evidence, or if there are available inferences which compete for the judge’s acceptance, no error of law occurs simply because the judge prefers one version of evidence to another or one set of inferences to another. This is his function. ... Even if the evidence is strongly one way the Appeal Court may not intervene simply because it reaches a different conclusion….16 [29] The Appeal Tribunal will not readily interfere with findings of fact of the tribunal at first instance, unless they are demonstrated to be wrong by ‘incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony’, or they are ‘glaringly improbable’ or ‘contrary to compelling inferences’.17 Cleaning costs [30] Was it available for the magistrate to make the inference that the condition of the property warranted an order the tenants pay the cleaning cost? [31] This question also addresses the ground at paragraph [5](a)(vii) and (c) of these reasons. [32] The magistrate had access to the entry and exit condition reports. Throughout, the exit report contains far more remarks than the entry report about dirt, mould, marks on various surfaces, traces of insects, bird droppings and other defects. Both reports contain comparative photographs of the interior of the property. I find it was open to the magistrate to find the condition of the property warranted an order the tenants pay the cleaning cost. Garden maintenance costs [33] Was it available for the magistrate to make the inference that the problems with the yard warranted an order the tenants pay for necessary maintenance? [34] This question also addresses the ground at paragraph [5](d) of these reasons. 13 Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) ss 137, 188, 420(1)(e). 14 Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 at 151 (‘Azzopardi’); Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 125-126; JM v QFG and KG [1998] QCA 228 at 20; Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 at 479. 15 (1985) 4 NSWLR 139. 16 At 151. 17 Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v McDermott [2016] HCA 22 [43]. Followed in Lee v Lee; Hsu v RACQ Insurance Limited; Lee v RACQ Insurance Limited [2018] QCA 104. -- 7 of 8 -- 8 [35] Again, the exit report lists a greater number of flaws than the entry report. Further, while the copy of the entry and exit reports have only poor-quality photographs of the garden, the exhibits attached to the affidavit of Ms Alleaume filed 31 October 2022 include a large number of high-quality colour copies of those same photographs, and additional photographs, which demonstrate the difference in the condition of the garden between entry and exit. I find it was open to the magistrate to make this finding. Light globe cost [36] Was it available for the magistrate to make the inference that the broken light globe warranted an order the tenants pay the cost of a replacement? [37] This question also addresses the ground at paragraph [5](e) of these reasons. [38] One of the exhibits to Ms Alleaume’s affidavit is a video recording of a light globe taking several seconds to activate. I find it was open to the magistrate to find the globe needed replacement. Summary of charges [39] It was open to the magistrate to find that the respondents had to pay the costs of each of the items above. This appeal ground therefore cannot succeed. Filing fees [40] In the Tribunal each party bears its own costs for a proceeding unless the interests of justice require otherwise.18 [41] The appellant asserts the order to pay Ms Alleaume’s filing fee for the original application is not ‘morally right, just or fair’. She claims that had she received a fair hearing an appeal would not be necessary, and seeks an award of the appeal filing fee on this basis. [42] Like any other legal claim, a claim that procedural fairness has not been afforded to a party must be supported by particular evidence. For such a claim to succeed the claimant must provide specific instances of behaviour or circumstances in which a party has been deprived of procedural fairness. It is not sufficient to make a blanket claim of unfairness because a party is dissatisfied with the result of a hearing or has a subjective feeling that justice has not been done.19 [43] The circumstances of this case do not warrant departure from the standard principle that parties pay their own costs in a proceeding. Order [44] None of the grounds of appeal succeed. [45] Leave to appeal is refused and the application for leave to appeal or appeal is dismissed. 18 QCAT Act ss 100, 102. 19 Robinson v Corr [2011] QCATA 302 [7]. -- 8 of 8 --