ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AMER v ERIKSSON (Appeal) [2019] ACAT 108
AA 12/2019 (XD 1460/2018)
Catchwords: APPEAL – civil dispute – damages – cost of necessary repairs to taxi driven by respondent – no loss assessors report before original tribunal – application to receive loss assessor report on appeal refused – appeal proceeded on evidence before original tribunal – no error shown – appeal dismissed
Subordinate
Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedure Rules 2009 (No 2)
Cases cited: August v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 85
Bellgrove v Eldrige (1954) 90 CLR 613
Chakravarty v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2013] ACAT 11
Giusida Pty Ltd v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2016] ACTSC 275
Hillier v R [2008] ACTCA
Leighton v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 55
Murphy v Brown (1985) 1 NSWLR 131
Tribunal: Presidential Member MT Daniel
Date of Orders: 29 August 2019
Date of Reasons for Decision: 29 November 2019AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) AA 12/2019
(XD 1460/2018)
BETWEEN:
MUHAMMAD AMER
Appellant
AND:
CHRISTOPHER ERIKSSON
Respondent
APPEAL TRIBUNAL: Presidential Member MT Daniel
DATE: 29 August 2019
ORDER
The Tribunal orders that:
1. Application for fresh evidence to be heard on appeal is refused.
2. Application for appeal is dismissed, and orders of 8 April 2018 are confirmed.
…………Signed……………..
Presidential Member MT Daniel
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. On 29 August 2019 I heard and dismissed an appeal from a decision of the tribunal (the Original Tribunal) made 8 April 2019. In the course of hearing the appeal, I also refused an application by the appellant to adduce fresh evidence on the appeal. At the time I gave oral reasons, but said that I would publish short written reasons for the decisions in due course. These are those reasons.
Background
2. On 31 October 2018 Mr Amer (the appellant) filed a civil dispute (damages) application claiming an amount of $3,540.71 plus reimbursement of the $156 filing fee from Mr Eriksson (the respondent). The respondent had been the driver of a taxi (taxi 173) owned by the appellant, which was involved in a collision on 4 August 2018 and suffered damage. The appellant asserted the respondent was negligent in the motor vehicle accident and was therefore liable to compensate the appellant for the loss he had suffered as a consequence of the accident.
3. The amount claimed represented $1000 insurance excess payable for the damage to the other vehicle involved in the accident, and $2,540.71 for repairs to the left rear bumper and panel of taxi 173.
4. In relation to the amount for repairs, a tax invoice (the invoice) was issued by Amers Pty Ltd to the respondent on 5 September 2018, requiring an amount of $2,540.71 be paid.…
Continue reading Amer v Eriksson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Amer v Eriksson (Appeal) [2019] ACAT 108
- Case
- [2019] ACAT 108
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was any error in the original decision, given that no loss assessor's report was presented before the original tribunal. Eriksson argued that the absence of such a report should not preclude the appeal, as the evidence before the original tribunal was sufficient to determine the matter. Amer, on the other hand, contended that the absence of a loss assessor's report was a critical flaw in the original proceedings and that the appeal should be dismissed for this reason.
In dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal found that there was no error in the original decision. The Tribunal noted that Eriksson had presented sufficient evidence to establish the need for repairs and the associated costs. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the absence of a loss assessor's report did not render the original decision erroneous, as the evidence before the original tribunal was adequate to support its findings. The Tribunal also refused Amer's application to receive the loss assessor's report on appeal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the original orders, holding that no error was shown in the original decision. The application for fresh evidence to be heard on appeal was also refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal orders that:
1. Application for fresh evidence to be heard on appeal is refused.
2. Application for appeal is dismissed, and orders of 8 April 2018 are confirmed.
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.