Chapple v Page [2014] QCATA 152

CITATION: Chapple v Page [2014] QCATA 152 PARTIES: Aaron Chapple (Applicant/Appellant) v Ron Page Glenys Page (Respondents) APPLICATION NUMBER: APL115-14 MATTER TYPE: Appeals HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Senior Member Stilgoe, OAM DELIVERED ON: 23 June 2014 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: 1. Leave to appeal refused. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where lessor’s claim for compensation at the end of a tenancy agreement – where tenant’s counterclaim for reduction in rent for condition of tenancy – where tenant did not attend hearing – where tribunal ordered the tenant pay compensation – whether grounds for leave to appeal Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 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 [1] Mr Chapple rented a home from Mr and Mrs Page. At the end of the tenancy, they filed an application for compensation. The application -- 1 of 3 -- 2 covered the usual items: unpaid rent, cleaning and make good costs. Two Justices of the Peace, sitting in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the tribunal, ordered Mr Chapple pay Mr and Mrs Page $1,365.95. [2] Mr Chapple wants to appeal that decision. He disputes the finding that rent was owing. He says Mr and Mrs Page misled the tribunal in claiming that he caused damage because the same items were recorded on the entry condition report. He says that Mr and Mrs Page did not attend to repairs that he asked for during the tenancy, so that the home was unsafe. He denies responsibility for the cost of pool chemicals. He says the cleaning charges arose because Mr and Mrs Page had to attend to essential maintenance anyway. [3] Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary. The principles the appeals tribunal applies when considering an application for leave to appeal are as summarised by Keane JA (as His Honour then was) in Pickering v McArthur1: There are numerous authorities, in varying language but with unvarying emphasis, that 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. [4] The appeal tribunal will not usually disturb findings of fact on appeal if the evidence is capable of supporting the conclusions.2 An appellate tribunal may interfere if the conclusion is ‘contrary to compelling inferences’ in the case.3 [5] Mr Chapple did not appear at the hearing. However, the learned Justices considered his documents when making their decision. They put Mr Chapple’s documents and arguments to Mr Page4 and asked for his response. They took Mr Page through each of his claims, putting him to proof. The learned Justices made the comment5 that: ‘the case for the non-appearing respondents has been put to you as well as it can be by anyone other than the respondent himself’. The learned Justices reduced some of the claim for compensation because they considered parts of it were excessive. However, they were otherwise satisfied that Mr and Mrs Page were entitled to compensation. [6] The evidence can support the learned Justices’ findings. Mr Chapple has not indicated why those findings were in error except to point to his original evidence. As I have already observed, the learned Justices conducted a careful examination of that evidence. There is nothing in the transcript to 1 [2005] QCA 294 at [3]. 2 Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 at 561; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 125-126. 3 Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 at 10. 4 See, for example, transcript page 1-10, line 16 to page 1-20 line 16. 5 Transcript page 1-35, line 6 to page 1-36 line 1. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 persuade me that the learned Justices should have taken a different view of the facts. [7] The tribunal listed this dispute for hearing twice. Mr Chapple failed to appear both times. The tribunal has an obligation to ensure that matters are dealt with quickly6. That obligation is not met when a claim filed in November 2013 is not resolved until February 2014 because of a party’s failure to appear. [8] There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Justices were in error. Leave to appeal should be refused. 6 QCAT Act s 3(b). -- 3 of 3 --