Aussie Education and Career Consultants v Francisco

The applicant, Aussie Education and Career Consultants, sought to appeal a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) which ordered a refund to the respondent, Mr Francisco (also known as Mr Priyan). Mr Francisco had engaged the applicant to provide immigration consultancy services for a move to Canada. He paid $10,000 but did not ultimately migrate to Canada. When he sought a refund, QCAT ordered Aussie to refund the payment. Aussie contends that QCAT erred in deciding that it was responsible for providing the immigration services. It claims that the correct entity was Canada Express Migration.

In determining whether to grant leave to appeal, the appeals tribunal considered several criteria. These include whether there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision and whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant will obtain substantive relief. The tribunal also considered whether leave is necessary to correct a substantial injustice and whether there is a question of general importance that would benefit from further argument. The tribunal found that the material filed in support of the application for leave was not fresh evidence and did not have an important impact on the result. The tribunal found that there was clear evidence that Canada Express Migration, not Aussie, was the proper party to the contract. The contract was on Canada Express Migration letterhead, referred to “The Company” undertaking the work, and Mr Shah signed on behalf of Canada Express Migration. The tribunal concluded that Aussie had made out a reasonably arguable case of error and there was a reasonable prospect of obtaining substantive relief.

The appeals tribunal set aside the decision of 14 June 2013 and dismissed the original proceeding. It granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The decision of QCAT ordering a refund to Mr Francisco was set aside. The appeal was allowed and the original proceeding was dismissed.