Booij & Multiply Plus Pty Ltd v Roper - [2015] QCATA 157

CITATION:		Booij & Multiply Plus Pty Ltd v Roper [2015] QCATA 157
PARTIES:	Hans Booij Multiply Plus Pty Ltd (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Anthony Roper Judith Roper (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL135-15

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

19 October 2015

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Endicott
Member Howard

DELIVERED ON:

21 October 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL-MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE-where respondents through their own administrative error failed to appear at the hearing of the minor civil dispute- where adjudicator proceeded to determine the proceeding in the respondents absence- where ground of appeal is breach of natural justice because respondents did not present their case- whether breach of natural justice

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] 239 CLR 175
Breezeway Developments Pty Ltd v ADG Hydraulics Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 69
Council of the City of Wollongong v Cowan (1955) 93 CLR 435.
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

Mr Johannes Booij appeared representing himself and Multipy Plus Pty Ltd as a Director

RESPONDENT:

Anthony and Judith Roper appeared representing themselves

REASONS FOR DECISION

An adjudicator made a decision that Mr Hans Booij and Multiply Plus Pty Ltd must pay to Anthony Roper and Judith Roper the sum of $5,105.00.
Mr Booij and Multiply Plus Pty Ltd (‘Multiply Plus’) subsequently filed an application for leave to appeal and appeal. In essence, the grounds of appeal are that Mr Booji and Multiply Plus Pty Ltd were denied natural justice because due to an administrative error, he did not attend the hearing and the decision was made without the Tribunal hearing from the respondents. He says that natural justice has been denied because the full facts of the matter were not presented to the Tribunal. In essence, he seeks a re-hearing because of his own failure to attend. He seek to rely upon a significant volume of material which was not before the learned Adjudicator at the hearing which relates to his arguments concerning the original application made by the Ropers.

The applications for leave to appeal and appeal

Leave to appeal will usually only be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision of the Tribunal was attended by error, and it is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.[1]
[1]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 at [3].
If leave is granted, the role of the Appeal Tribunal in hearing the appeal is to determine whether the appeal identifies that the learned Adjudicator was in error in reaching his decision. On appeal, new evidence (that is, evidence that was not before the Tribunal originally hearing the application) is not permitted without the leave of the Tribunal. Leave may be granted where the evidence was not reasonably available at the hearing; had it been, an opposite…

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 Booij & Multiply Plus Pty Ltd v Roper

Details

AGLC: Booij & Multiply Plus Pty Ltd v Roper [2015] QCATA 157
Case: [2015] QCATA 157
Decision Date: 21 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Booij & Multiply Plus Pty Ltd v Roper, the applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) in a minor civil dispute. The dispute arose from an administrative error made by the respondents, who failed to appear at the hearing due to their own oversight. Despite this, the adjudicator proceeded to determine the matter in the absence of the respondents, leading the applicants to argue that the proceedings were a breach of natural justice because the respondents were not given the opportunity to present their case. The applicants appealed on the grounds of the alleged breach of natural justice.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the proceedings before QCAT constituted a breach of natural justice by not allowing the respondents to present their case. The applicants relied on previous case law which established that parties must be given a fair opportunity to present their case. The court considered whether the administrative error of the respondents constituted an exceptional circumstance that warranted a departure from the principle of audi alteram partem, which is a fundamental rule of natural justice.

In evaluating the application, the court noted that while natural justice requires that parties have an opportunity to be heard, the extent to which this requirement must be upheld depends on the circumstances of each case. The court held that the failure of the respondents to appear was due to their own administrative error and not an exceptional circumstance that would warrant an appeal. The court found that the adjudicator had not breached natural justice by proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the respondents, as the respondents' failure to appear did not prejudice their ability to make a submission. The court concluded that the applicants' grounds for appeal did not meet the threshold for leave to appeal.

The application for leave to appeal was refused. The court held that the QCAT proceedings did not breach the principles of natural justice, and as such, the applicants' grounds for appeal were insufficient to warrant an appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for 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.