Baker v Botting - [2012] QCAT 648

CITATION:

Baker v Botting [2012] QCAT 648

PARTIES:	Maurice Baker
v
Gordon Botting

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDO74-12

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

20 December 2012

HEARD AT:

Wynnum

DECISION OF:

Paul Favell, Member

DELIVERED ON:

21 December 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Minor civil dispute – claim for damages because of accident – cause of accident – jurisdiction

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Maurice Baker

RESPONDENT:

Gordon Botting

REASONS FOR DECISION

In November 2011, the applicant verbally agreed with the respondent that he would pay the respondent $1,200 for the manufacture and delivery of a car trailer suitable for transporting a golf buggy. The applicant supplied the wheels and tyres for the trailer. In January 2012 the respondent manufactured and delivered the trailer to the applicant. He was paid for the work done.
On 19 August 2012 whilst the applicant was towing the trailer on the highway near Nudgee transporting his golf cart to the golf course, he heard a loud bang and saw that the axle on the trailer disconnected from the chassis of the trailer. He took the trailer to the respondent who repaired it without charge.
The applicant seeks to claim $861.74 from the respondent on the basis that the axle became disconnected from the chassis of the trailer because of poor workmanship on the part of the respondent.
All of the evidence given with respect to that claim was filed with the application and the applicant told me that he heard a loud bang and then saw the aftermath of whatever happened. There is no evidence as to what happened or any sequence of what happened. I saw photographs of tyres which had been damaged and had cuts or tears in them. There was no other photographic evidence showing the area where the axle became disconnected from the chassis. I was told by the respondent that the axle was hung on the chassis by u-bolts and a standard plate. When he repaired the axle, he saw the axle had come away from its mounting but the u-bolt was still there and the nuts were done up. He told me that if there had been a tyre which had blown, the result of the trailer hitting the ground would be such that the axle could come out of its mounting.
There is no evidence given from any expert as to the cause of the accident nor is there any evidence that any work done by the respondent in constructing the trailer was of poor quality or negligent.
The amount the applicant is claiming is made up as follows.
Two new tyres fitted and balanced and the disposal of the old tyres $410.74
Tow truck   $70.00
The use of a crane  $20.00
Repair of golf cart seat  $250.00
Toll  $16.00
Total  $861.74
The applicant made demand for payment from the respondent and said that when he took the trailer to the respondent’s home for repair, the respondent’s son…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Baker v Botting 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: [2012] QCAT 648
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Baker v Botting [2012] QCAT 648 concerns a claim by Maurice Baker against Gordon Botting for damages arising from an incident involving a car trailer manufactured and delivered by Botting. The incident occurred on 19 August 2012 when Baker was towing his golf cart to a golf course near Nudgee. During the journey, the axle of the trailer disconnected from the chassis, causing Baker to incur expenses for repairs and towing. Baker sought to recover $861.74 from Botting, alleging the incident was due to poor workmanship. The dispute was heard by Paul Favell, a Member of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), on 20 December 2012, and a decision was delivered on 21 December 2012.

The central legal issues in the case were whether QCAT had the jurisdiction to hear the matter under its minor civil dispute jurisdiction and whether Botting's workmanship was faulty, leading to the disconnection of the trailer's axle. The jurisdictional question hinged on whether the claim fell within the definition of a minor civil dispute under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. The substantive issue required an evaluation of the evidence to determine whether there was faulty workmanship by Botting that caused the incident.

Paul Favell found that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim under its minor civil jurisdiction. The Tribunal's jurisdiction in minor civil disputes is limited to specific types of claims, none of which appeared to fit the circumstances of this case. The claim did not fall under the prescribed monetary limits or the categories of relief specified in the Act. Additionally, the evidence did not conclusively show that Botting's workmanship was faulty. Botting argued that if there had been a fault, it should have manifested before the incident, which occurred nine months after the trailer was delivered. The Tribunal noted that while there were competing explanations for the incident, including the possibility of a blown tyre, there was insufficient evidence to attribute the incident to faulty workmanship by Botting. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The final order of the Tribunal was that the application by Maurice Baker against Gordon Botting was dismissed. The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter under its minor civil dispute jurisdiction and that there was insufficient evidence to determine that Botting's workmanship was at fault.

Orders