{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Carta v Tilley (No 2)
Download as PDF
Download as Word
Highlights
My Notes
Collections
Create a New Collection
Overview
Full Text
{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Details
Case
Agency Issuance Number
Published Date
Carta v Tilley (No 2)
[2019] QDC 235
Tags
No tags available
Case
Carta v Tilley (No 2)
[2019] QDC 235
•
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Carta v Tilley (No 2) [2019] QDC 235 PARTIES: PAUL CARTA (plaintiff) v CHRISTOPHER TILLEY (first defendant) and CLARE LEONIE TILLEY (second defendant) FILE NO/S: BD3878/19; M0055820/17 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: Civil Trial ORIGINATING COURT: Magistrates Court at Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 29 November 2019 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 4 November 2019 JUDGE: McGill SC DCJ ORDER: Plaintiff’s claim dismissed. On counterclaim, judgment that the plaintiff pay the defendants $2,690.04, including $650.04 by way of interest. CATCHWORDS: LANDLORD AND TENANT – Tenant’s obligations – whether particular damage responsibility of tenant – whether some rent payments made – bond recoverable. Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 s 188. COUNSEL: S K Long for the plaintiff C Upton for the defendants SOLICITORS: Celtic Law for the plaintiff GTC Lawyers for the defendants The defendants were, prior to 14 April 2014, tenants of the plaintiff in a flat in Vulture Street, South Brisbane. By this action the plaintiff claims $7,300.00 unpaid rent from the defendants. The defendants dispute that this is owing, and alleged by counterclaim that there has actually been an over-payment of rent, which they claim, and that the plaintiff has failed to refund a rental bond of $1,400.00 paid to the plaintiff in cash at the start of the tenancy. The plaintiff alleges that he was entitled to forfeit the bond, or at least most of it, to cover the cost of repairs to the front door of the unit after it was damaged by the...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
Carta v Tilley (No 2)
[2019] QDC 235
•
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Carta v Tilley (No 2) [2019] QDC 235 PARTIES: PAUL CARTA (plaintiff) v CHRISTOPHER TILLEY (first defendant) and CLARE LEONIE TILLEY (second defendant) FILE NO/S: BD3878/19; M0055820/17 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: Civil Trial ORIGINATING COURT: Magistrates Court at Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 29 November 2019 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 4 November 2019 JUDGE: McGill SC DCJ ORDER: Plaintiff’s claim dismissed. On counterclaim, judgment that the plaintiff pay the defendants $2,690.04, including $650.04 by way of interest. CATCHWORDS: LANDLORD AND TENANT – Tenant’s obligations – whether particular damage responsibility of tenant – whether some rent payments made – bond recoverable. Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 s 188. COUNSEL: S K Long for the plaintiff C Upton for the defendants SOLICITORS: Celtic Law for the plaintiff GTC Lawyers for the defendants The defendants were, prior to 14 April 2014, tenants of the plaintiff in a flat in Vulture Street, South Brisbane. By this action the plaintiff claims $7,300.00 unpaid rent from the defendants. The defendants dispute that this is owing, and alleged by counterclaim that there has actually been an over-payment of rent, which they claim, and that the plaintiff has failed to refund a rental bond of $1,400.00 paid to the plaintiff in cash at the start of the tenancy. The plaintiff alleges that he was entitled to forfeit the bond, or at least most of it, to cover the cost of repairs to the front door of the unit after it was damaged by the...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>