Bown v Lee - [2018] QCA 13

[2018] QCA 13

COURT OF APPEAL

SOFRONOFF P
GOTTERSON JA
McMURDO JA

Appeal No 5454 of 2017
QCATA No 22 of 2017

KEVIN BOWN Applicant

DAVID GRANT LEE Respondent

BRISBANE

WEDNESDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2018

JUDGMENT

SOFRONOFF P: This application originated as a minor civil dispute constituted by a claim for compensation by the respondent against the applicant for damages suffered as a result of his having bought a defective used car from the applicant, who is a used car dealer. The expression “minor civil dispute” is defined in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 to mean, relevantly, a proceeding in which an amount of money is claimed by a consumer and the amount is not more than the prescribed amount. Currently, that amount is $25,000. Such a claim is heard by an Adjudicator appointed under the Act.

The procedure for the determination of minor civil disputes is truncated and streamlined to reduce formality, delay and cost in accordance with the objects of the Act and the objects of the rules of the Tribunal expressed in r 3 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009. Thus, for example, the duty of disclosure is strictly limited by r 81 and so is the power to order costs pursuant to r 84. Rule 43 provides that no written response can be filed in answer to a claim but, rather, a respondent’s answer is to be made at the hearing pursuant to r 95.

The speed and informality of such proceedings are reinforced because the Tribunal need not give written reasons for any decision. However, pursuant to s 122 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, a party may request reasons in writing within 14 days of the decision taking effect or within such extended period as the President of the Tribunal allows.

In general, the statute provides that a decision takes effect when it is pronounced. Pursuant to s 142(3), a party to a minor civil dispute may appeal to the Tribunal only with leave of the Tribunal. That provision similarly limits the right of appeal against interlocutory decisions and costs decisions. The latter two classes of decisions have long been regarded in the law as instances in which an appellate Tribunal or Court will be very reluctant to intervene because appellate intervention in such cases is prone to stultify the administration of justice. Consequently statutes commonly provide that leave to appeal is required in such cases and leave is usually only granted when a point of principle is involved or there is arguably a substantial miscarriage of justice. It is not enough for an applicant to point to an error of law. The applicability of this principle of restraint is obviously apt in cases involving disputes about small sums of money such as this one.

Section 150 of the Act provides that an appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision of the Appeal Tribunal to refuse an application for leave to appeal to…

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 Bown v Lee

Details

AGLC: Bown v Lee [2018] QCA 13
Case: [2018] QCA 13
Decision Date: 21 FEBRUARY 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bown v Lee was an application for leave to appeal a decision made by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) in a minor civil dispute. The applicant, Kevin Bown, a used car dealer, was ordered to pay the respondent, David Grant Lee, compensation for a defective used car he had purchased from Bown. The application for leave to appeal was brought before the Queensland Court of Appeal, with Sofronoff P, Gotterson JA, and McMurdo JA presiding. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had a competent basis upon which to appeal the decision of QCAT, which had refused leave to appeal the Adjudicator's decision.

The Court found that the application for leave to appeal was incompetent for several reasons. Firstly, the applicant failed to request written reasons for the Adjudicator's decision within the time limit specified by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008, and therefore did not have the necessary evidence to point to any errors of law in the proceedings below. Secondly, the draft grounds of appeal were incoherent, legally incompetent, and did not address the only relevant question of whether QCAT was in error and whether there was any reason to grant leave to appeal in a case involving such a small sum of money. Finally, the applicant did not comply with the requirement to prepare an appeal book, which included the reasons for judgment or a statement to that effect and a copy of the latest pleadings or their equivalent. The Court found that the application for leave to appeal was an abuse of process and should be struck out.

In conclusion, the Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs on a standard basis. The Court found that the applicant had not provided a competent basis for the exercise of the Court's discretion to grant leave to appeal, and that the application was an abuse of process. The Court's decision highlights the importance of strict compliance with procedural requirements and the need for legally competent grounds of appeal.

Orders