AAlert Training Pty Ltd v Scott & Ors - [2014] QCATA 95

CITATION:

AAlert Training Pty Ltd v Scott & Ors [2014] QCATA 95

PARTIES:	AAlert Training Pty Ltd (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Glenn Scott Mathew Coupar Brett Hitchcock Joe Daus Enos Charles Henry Newitt Marine Diesel Comcove Pty Ltd t/as Marine Diesel (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL035 -14

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Stilgoe, OAM

DELIVERED ON:

28 April 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where pro forma invoice for training course – where pro forma invoice emailed to respondent with copy of participant handbook – where terms of trade included in participant handbook – where pro forma invoice not paid - where claim for invoice, lost opportunity costs and costs of bringing claim to the tribunal – where tribunal found no contract formed until payment of pro forma invoice – where claim dismissed – whether tribunal erred in finding no contract existed – whether grounds for leave to appeal

PROCEDURE – where applicant received 30 pages of material on the morning of the hearing – where applicant did not apply for adjournment – whether lack of procedural fairness – whether grounds for leave to appeal

EVIDENCE – where applicant filed transcript of telephone conversation with respondent taken from recording – where no evidence that respondent consented to recording of conversation – whether evidence should be admitted

Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) ss 6, 7

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294
Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404
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

AAlert Training Pty Ltd provides industry training. In July 2013, Mr Scott, on behalf of Comcove Pty Ltd inquired about training some of the company’s employees. AAlert provided a couple of “pro forma” invoices together with the participant handbook by email. On 17 July 2013, it provided a pro forma invoice for $9,000 relating to training offered in the last weekend of July and the first weekend of August 2013. The email by which that pro forma invoice was sent stated ‘As soon as the payment is made we will process the enrolments’. Comcove did not make a payment and did not take up the training. AAlert filed a minor debt claim for $25,000, the maiximum amount recoverable in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction. Its claim was dismissed.
AAlert wants to appeal that decision. It says the learned Adjudicator erred in his interpretation of the contract. It says that there was an abuse of process during the hearing. It says the learned Adjudicator made an error of fact. It says that the respondents made false and misleading statements…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AAlert Training Pty Ltd v Scott & Ors

Details

AGLC: AAlert Training Pty Ltd v Scott & Ors [2014] QCATA 95
Case: [2014] QCATA 95
Decision Date: 28 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AAlert Training Pty Ltd sought leave to appeal a decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The company claimed the tribunal erred in finding that there was no contract between it and the respondents, Scott and others, regarding a training course. The claim was dismissed because the tribunal found that no contract existed until the pro forma invoice was paid. The company also sought leave to appeal on the basis of procedural fairness, as it had only received the material the morning of the hearing and did not apply for an adjournment. Additionally, the company argued that evidence in the form of a transcript of a telephone conversation with one of the respondents should have been admitted, despite no evidence of consent to the recording.

The court considered whether the tribunal erred in concluding that no contract existed and whether there were grounds for leave to appeal based on procedural fairness and the admissibility of evidence. The court found that the tribunal was correct in its determination that no contract existed, as the terms of trade were clearly outlined in the participant handbook, which was sent with the pro forma invoice, and payment was a condition precedent to the formation of a contract. Regarding procedural fairness, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any prejudice due to the late receipt of material, and the failure to apply for an adjournment did not amount to a denial of procedural fairness. The court also held that the transcript of the telephone conversation was inadmissible as it was likely obtained without consent and violated privacy principles.

Accordingly, the court refused the application for leave to appeal. The procedural fairness and admissibility of evidence arguments did not provide sufficient grounds to grant leave. The findings of the tribunal were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.