Darren and Llana Beale win appeal over rental home compensation

A Queensland couple have won the right to appeal a court decision ordering they pay more than $3000 in painting costs. See why a key body has ruled in their favour.

A Mackay couple has won the right to appeal a court decision that allowed their former landlord to sting them for more than $3000 in painting costs towards this property. Picture: CoreLogic

A Mackay couple has won the right to appeal a court decision that allowed their former landlord to sting them for more than $3000 in painting costs.

Darren and Llana Beale had rented the Walkerston home between 2017 and 2021.

A Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision stated about a month before their tenancy ended the home was sold to Natasha Holmes, who sought compensation totalling $3363.64.

The amount was said to be the “cost … for removal, patch and paint” of areas affected by adhesive hooks and fasteners left in the premises when vacated.

“The sum said to represent that cost was, it seems, approximately half the cost of repainting the entirety of the interior of the rented premises,” the judgment stated.

A Mackay couple have won the right to appeal a court decision after they were ordered to pay more than $3000 in compensation.

During a QCAT sitting in December 2021, a Mackay magistrate ordered the couple to pay Ms Holmes $3009.14.

The Beales appealed the decision.

QCAT judicial member Peter Murphy, who oversaw the appeal application, determined it should be granted on a number of grounds criticising the magistrate’s reasons as “manifestly inadequate to explain the order made”.

The judgment stated that before the December 2021 hearing, the Beales had filed detailed written submissions on a number of issues linked to the case including what evidence supported allegations the couple had caused damage to the home and how was it quantified.

“There was no reference to these issues... and no findings were made in respect of any of them. Axiomatically, there was no resolution of them,” Mr Murphy said.

“The failure to provide adequate reasons and the failure to address the case raised by the Beales is each an error of law.”

Mr Murphy found the error resulted in a “substantial injustice” to the Beales.

Mr Murphy also highlighted “intriguing” discrepancies in quotes provided by the painting firm hired to do the work.

“No evidence is offered by Ms Holmes … or anyone else – in explanation of these discrepancies. Ms Holmes bore the onus of establishing her claim before the (hearing),” he said.

“Ms Holmes made no case that the asserted repairs and the repainting were done in contemplation of the property being leased by her.

“The evidence reveals the property was re-sold by Ms Holmes in November 2021 – that is about four months after it was purchased in July and … within weeks of the final payment for painting the interior having been made.”

Mr Murphy ordered the matter be returned to a QCAT sitting in Mackay for reconsideration, and to be heard by a different magistrate.