Arian v Lafaele & Moananu - [2016] QCATA 18

CITATION:

Arian v Lafaele & Moananu [2016] QCATA 18

PARTIES:	Younes Arian (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Tai Lafaele (First Respondent) Tessie Moananu (Second Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:		APL396-15

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

12 January 2016

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Carmody

DELIVERED ON:

22 January 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – where the applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision of a Magistrate in MCDT97-15 setting aside an earlier decision of a Magistrate in the same matter and substituting a lesser monetary order – whether leave to appeal should be granted.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), ss 8, 137, 139, 138, 142, sch 3

Bruce Moon v Office of State Revenue (unreported, Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeal Tribunal, APL213-15, 4 December 2015, Carmody J)
Brunskill v Sovereign Marine & General Insurance Co Ltd (1985) 62 ALR 53
Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1
Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 427
Eileen Reed v Department of Public Housing and Works (unreported, Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeal Tribunal, APL484-15, 20 November 2015, President Thomas)
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Hampton Court Ltd v Crooks (1957) 97 CLR 367
Mobile Building System International Pty Ltd v Hua [2014] QCATA 336
National Australia Bank Ltd v KDS Construction Services Pty Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 668
Park v Brothers [2005] HCA 73
Port Jacks Stevedoring Pty Ltd v Salmond & Spraggon (Aust) Pty Ltd (1978) 139 CLR 231
Reihana v Beenleigh Show Society [2015] QCATA 170
Wollongong v Metwally (No 2) (1985) 59 ALJR 481

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT/APPELLANT L Arian (self-represented)
RESPONDENT T Moananu for the first and second respondents.

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is an application for leave to appeal filed by the applicant on 28 September 2015. The appeal relates to a decision of Magistrate Tonkin exercising the minor civil dispute jurisdiction of QCAT on 1 September 2015.

FACTUAL MATRIX AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The applicant and Ms Tautua Tuvale (“Tuvale”), the mother of Ms Moananu (the second respondent), and Mr Michael Toma (“Toma”), entered into a tenancy agreement (“First Lease”) at to lease the applicant’s duplex Third Avenue, Caloundra. The duplex was divided into two living areas, styled 5A and 5B. The applicant resided in 5A, and Tuvale and Toma resided in 5B. The duration of the First Lease was 7 November 2014 to 6 June 2015.
In early January 2015 Tuvale formed the intention to move to Wagga Wagga to reside with her son. Tuvale invited the respondents to assume ownership and administration of her cleaning business in Caloundra. The respondents agreed to this proposition.
In January 2015, Tuvale informed the applicant of her intention to terminate the lease prior to its expiration. The applicant and Tuvale entered into an informal collateral agreement whereby the respondents would enter into a lease agreement with the applicant.

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 Arian v Lafaele & Moananu

Details

AGLC: Arian v Lafaele and Moananu [2016] QCATA 18
Case: [2016] QCATA 18
Decision Date: 22 January 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Arian against Lafaele & Moananu. The matter before the tribunal was a decision by a Magistrate in the Magistrates Court of the District of Tasmania (MCDT) setting aside a previous decision made by another Magistrate in the same case. The original decision had imposed a monetary penalty, which was subsequently reduced by the second Magistrate. Arian sought leave to appeal against this decision. The tribunal was tasked with determining whether it should grant leave for the appeal to proceed.

The key legal issue before the tribunal was whether the circumstances warranted granting leave to appeal. This required consideration of whether the decision in question involved a significant error of law or had substantial impact on the outcome of the case. The tribunal assessed the arguments presented by Arian regarding the appropriateness of the monetary penalty and the procedural fairness of the process leading up to the decision.

After careful consideration, the tribunal concluded that the decision made by the Magistrate did not involve any significant error of law and the outcome was not substantially affected. The tribunal found that the arguments presented by Arian did not demonstrate a compelling reason for the appeal to proceed. As a result, the tribunal refused leave to appeal, affirming the decision of the Magistrate in the MCDT.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. Leave to appeal 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.