Australian Post Corporation v Boon - [2014] QCATA 17

CITATION:

Australian Post Corporation v Boon [2014] QCATA 17

PARTIES:	Australian Postal Corporation (t/a Australia Post) (Appellant)
v
Daniel Boon (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL493-13

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

30 January 2014

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr Forbes, Member

DELIVERED ON:

4 February 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal is allowed.

3. The decision of the Tribunal herein, delivered on 16 October 2013, is set aside.

4. The action commenced as Case Number 362/13 (Southport) on 10 May 2013 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL CLAIM – whether breach of contract to deliver by Express Post – whether loss alleged a reasonably foreseeable result of breach, if any – whether error of law in application of Australia Post General Terms and Conditions – whether error in finding loss recoverable – leave to appeal granted – appeal allowed

Australia Post Terms and Conditions, clause 39
Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 (Cth), s 32
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Ch 2 Part 2.3, Part IX, Sch 2, s 267
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 32

Endeavour Foundation v Weaver [2013] QCA 371, cited
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341; 156 ER 145
New South Wales v Fahy (2007) 232 CLR 486; [2007] HCA 20, cited
O’Donovan v Western Australian Alcohol and Drug Authority [2014] WASCA 4, cited
The Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64; [1991] HCA 54, cited
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40; [1980] HCA 12, cited

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 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 16 October 2013 the Tribunal ordered the appellant Australian Postal Corporation (“APC”) to pay the respondent Daniel Boon (“Boon”) $1,453.00, including costs,[1] within 14 days. The APC seeks leave to appeal.[2]
[1]Filing fee $98.
[2]Application for leave to appeal filed 12 November 2013.
Boon’s claim concerned the late delivery of an Express Post package addressed to the Brazilian Consulate in Sydney. Boon posted the package at the APC’s Chevron Island office on the Gold Coast on Thursday, 29 March 2012. It contained documents in support of an application for a visa to visit Brazil.
APC’s Express Post service “guaranteed” delivery within the Express Post network (including Sydney) on the next business day, Friday 30 March 2012. It was not delivered until Monday 2 April 2012.
As a result, Boon complains, the issuing of his visa was delayed. He was obliged to postpone his flight to Brazil, and to re-book his accommodation, at an additional cost of $1,355. He claims that amount as damages for breach of contract. APC says that if any such breach occurred (which it denies) the amount claimed is not recoverable, and that Boon is entitled only…

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 Australian Post Corporation v Boon

Details

AGLC: Australian Post Corporation v Boon [2014] QCATA 17
Case: [2014] QCATA 17
Decision Date: 4 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Australian Post Corporation was sued by Mr Boon for failing to deliver a parcel by the contracted date of delivery. Mr Boon claimed that the late delivery caused him to incur additional costs and distress, which he sought to recover. The case was heard in the Southport Magistrates Court and was subsequently appealed to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The appeal centred on whether there was a breach of contract by Australian Post Corporation, whether the losses claimed were a reasonably foreseeable result of the breach, and whether there was an error in the application of Australia Post General Terms and Conditions. The QCAT found that Australian Post Corporation had breached the contract, but that the losses claimed by Mr Boon were not a reasonably foreseeable result of the breach. The court held that the late delivery was not the proximate cause of Mr Boon’s additional costs and distress, and that Mr Boon’s own actions and decisions contributed to his losses.

The appeal court found that the QCAT had erred in finding a breach of contract by Australian Post Corporation. The court held that the time frames contemplated by Boon and the Consulate were significantly different, and that the late delivery was not the proximate cause of Mr Boon’s additional costs and distress. The court further held that the QCAT had also erred in finding that the losses claimed were a reasonably foreseeable result of the breach. The appeal court found that Mr Boon’s own actions and decisions contributed to his losses, and that the losses were not a reasonably foreseeable result of the breach. The appeal court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the decision of the QCAT. The action commenced as Case Number 362/13 (Southport) on 10 May 2013 was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal is allowed.

3. The decision of the Tribunal herein, delivered on 16 October 2013, is set aside.

4. The action commenced as Case Number 362/13 (Southport) on 10 May 2013 is dismissed.

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

Besides, was the additional expense really a “result” of the breach, if any? Probably not, in view of the difference between the significantly different “time frames” contemplated by Boon and the Consulate, respectively.[19][19]See paragraph [12], above.Conclusion Clearly Mr Boon has suffered additional expense, and (possibly worse) non-compensable anxiety and inconvenience. But sympathy cannot avoid a respectful conclusion that the Tribunal fell into legal error in finding a breach of contract. Further – if it matters – it erred in finding that that the losses claimed were a reasonably foreseeable result of the breach that they mistakenly imputed. Leave to appeal must be granted, the appeal is allowed, and the decision of the primary Tribunal is set aside. There will be orders accordingly.Orders:1Leave to appeal is granted.2The appeal is allowed.3The decision of the Tribunal herein, delivered on 16 October 2013, is set aside.4The action commenced as Case Number 362/13 (Southport) on 10 May 2013 is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.