Computer Australia Group Pty Ltd v Hutchinson & Anor [2014] QCATA 235

CITATION: Computer Australia Group Pty Ltd v Hutchinson & Anor [2014] QCATA 235 PARTIES: Computer Australia Group Pty Ltd (Applicant/Appellant) v Allan John Hutchinson Melanee Jane Hutchinson (Respondents) APPLICATION NUMBER: APL097 -14 MATTER TYPE: Appeals HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Justice Thomas, President DELIVERED ON: 26 August 2014 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDER MADE: The application for leave to appeal is refused. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where commercial lease expired – where invoices rendered for rent after expiry of term – whether tenant holding over – whether tenant obliged to pay rent – whether grounds for leave to appeal Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 32, s 142(3)(a)(i) Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR1 Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Pickering v McArthur [2005] 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). -- 1 of 3 -- 2 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Computer Australia Group Pty Ltd (“Computer Australia”) leased commercial premises from Mr and Mrs Hutchinson. The lease expired on 17 June 2011. Mr and Mrs Hutchinson rendered invoices for unpaid rent up to and including September 2011 on the basis that Computer Australia was holding over. Computer Australia did not pay the invoices, so Mr and Mrs Hutchinson filed a claim for minor debt in the tribunal. A Magistrate, sitting as a member of the tribunal allowed the claim and ordered Computer Australia pay Mr and Mrs Hutchinson $17,555.81. [2] Computer Australia seeks to appeal the learned Magistrate’s decision. It says Mr and Mrs Hutchinson submitted no evidence that Computer Australia remained in the premises after the lease expired. It says that the lease was a retail shop lease and, therefore, Mr and Mrs Hutchinson’s claim did not comply with the tribunal rules. [3] Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.1 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.2 [4] The tribunal has jurisdiction for both retail shop lease disputes under the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (Qld) and minor debt claims. Mr and Mrs Hutchinson’s claim was not a retail shop lease dispute. It was a claim for a debt due. The claim was in the appropriate form and the learned Magistrate was not in error. [5] Computer Australia’s submissions to the appeal tribunal are not novel. Mr Wu, on behalf of Computer Australia, made the same submissions to the learned Magistrate. [6] The appeal tribunal will not usually disturb findings of fact on appeal if the evidence is capable of supporting the conclusions,3 however may interfere if the conclusion that was reached is ‘contrary to compelling inferences’ in the case.4 [7] Copies of tax invoices for rent owing prior to the expiry of the lease plus rent for July, August and September 2011 were in evidence. Computer Australia produced no contemporaneous evidence to suggest that the invoices were wrong, or rendered in error. There was no letter or email from Computer Australia challenging the invoices or asking why it was still being asked to pay rent when it had vacated the premises. [8] The learned Magistrate heard evidence from each side about this issue, and was satisfied that Mr and Mrs Hutchinson had satisfied the onus of 1 QCAT Act s 142(3)(a)(i). 2 [2005] QCA 294 at [3]. 3 Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 at 561; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 125- 126. 4 Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 at 10. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 proof. The evidence can support his finding, which is the relevant consideration for this appeal tribunal. There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Magistrate was in error. Leave to appeal should be refused. -- 3 of 3 --