Alderton & Anor v Wide Bay Constructions Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

CITATION:

Alderton & Anor v Wide Bay Constructions Pty Ltd [2017] QCATA 147

PARTIES:

Sally Alderton
Simon Alderton

(Applicants/Appellants)

v

Wide Bay Constructions Pty Ltd t/as Dixon Homes Hervey Bay

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL131-17

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Howard

DELIVERED ON:

24 November 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    Leave is granted for both parties to be legally represented in the proceeding.

2.    The application of Sally Alderton and Simon Alderton for leave to file fresh evidence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE OR TERRITORY COURTS – PARTIES AND REPRESENTATION – LEGAL REPRESENTATION – GENERALLY – where leave for legal representation sought – where leave for legal representation was granted in the original proceeding – where there is some complexity in the grounds of appeal – where the applicants submit that they will be disadvantaged – whether leave should be given for parties to have legal representation

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –– APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – ADMISSION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE – where applicants seek leave to adduce new evidence on appeal – whether the evidence could have been available with reasonable diligence in the original proceeding – whether the fresh evidence is credible

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 28, s 29, s 43, s 146, s 147

Albrecht v Ainsworth & Ors [2015] QCA 220
Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404
Ericson v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCA 297
John Urquhart t/as Hart Renovations v Partington [2016] QCA 87
Lida Build Pty Ltd v Miller [2010] QCATA 17
QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41

APPEARANCES:

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. Sally Raub (now known as Sally Alderton) and Simon Alderton filed an application for a domestic building dispute against Widebay Constructions Pty Ltd t/as Dixon Homes Hervey Bay (Widebay Constructions). The Tribunal determined that application and final orders were made by the Tribunal on 28 March 2017.

  2. Subsequently, Mr and Ms Alderton filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal the Tribunal’s decision. That application has not yet been determined.

  3. In the course of the appeal proceedings, Widebay Constructions filed an application seeking leave for legal representation. I made orders granting leave for both parties to be legally represented in the proceeding.[1]

    [1]Appeal Tribunal Directions dated 18 October 2017.

  4. Mr and Ms Alderton also filed a miscellaneous application seeking leave to rely upon  fresh evidence. I made orders refusing that application.[2]

    [2]Appeal Tribunal Directions dated 24 November 2017.

  5. Both determinations were made on the basis of the evidence and submissions filed by the parties and without an oral hearing. Mr and Mrs Alderton have now…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Alderton & Anor v Wide Bay Constructions Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2017] QCATA 147
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Alderton & Anor v Wide Bay Constructions Pty Ltd, the applicants sought leave to be legally represented in the appeal and to adduce new evidence. The applicants were appealing against a decision made by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The primary legal issues for the court to determine were whether the applicants should be granted leave to be legally represented in the appeal and whether they should be allowed to present new evidence that was not available at the time of the original proceeding.

The court considered the complexity of the grounds of appeal and the potential disadvantage the applicants would face without legal representation. It was noted that leave for legal representation had already been granted in the original proceeding, and the applicants argued that the grounds of appeal were complex enough to warrant such representation in the appeal. The court concluded that the applicants would indeed be disadvantaged without legal representation and granted leave for both parties to be legally represented.

Regarding the fresh evidence, the applicants sought to introduce evidence that they claimed could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence during the original proceeding. The court examined whether the fresh evidence was credible and whether it could have been available with reasonable diligence at the time of the original proceeding. The court found that the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and was not credible enough to warrant its admission. Consequently, the application for leave to file fresh evidence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave is granted for both parties to be legally represented in the proceeding.

2. The application of Sally Alderton and Simon Alderton for leave to file fresh evidence is 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.