Briggs v Lisale - [2025] QCATA 48

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION

Briggs v Lisale & Anor [2025] QCATA 48

PARTIES:

LIAM TERRY BRIGGS

(applicant)

v

JODIE MARIE LISALE

(respondent)

YERRIE GUY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO:

APL287-24

MCDO2842 of 2024

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

2 May 2025

HEARING DATE:

24 April 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr J R Forbes

ORDERS:

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed

CATCHWORDS
CONSUMER DISPUTE – application for leave to appeal – contract for services – where ecommerce facility needed to provide access to web – where major fault found in ecommerce facility – where action by consumer to recover monies paid – where respondent denies personal liability and claims that a company is proper respondent – whether respondent acted as servant or agent of company – whether applicant made the subject agreement in his personal capacity – whether action against individual respondent should be dismissed – whether post-contractual evidence unilaterally alters terms of the agreement or identity of responsible party – where tribunal finds individual respondent liable – where respondent seeks leave to appeal on issues of identity and due process

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 500
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 32, s 142

Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd v G R Securities Pty Ltd (1986) 40 NSWLR 622

Cameron v Spalding [2012] QCATA 145

Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (The Starsin) [2004] 1 AC 715

JM v QFG [1998] QCA 228

Salomon v Salomon & Co [1897] AC 22
Seo v Kent Realty Southport [2018] QCATA 125

Sinclair v Balanian [2024] NSWCA 144

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

In early 2022 the present respondents, Jodie Lisale and Yerri Guy (‘Lisale-Guy’) decided to commence a retail business in ‘e-commerce’ form.
The term ‘e-commerce’ (an abbreviation of ‘electronic commerce’) refers to the connection of vendors with customers for the exchange of goods or services online.
The creation of such a business requires the construction online of a special ‘web site’.
For that purpose, Lisale-Guy, on or about 27 February 2022, entered into an agreement with the present applicant (‘Briggs’) to construct such a website.[1] On 1 March 2022 they paid Briggs $10,000 for that service.
[1] Email Lisale to Briggs 22 April 2022 para 2.
Lisale and Guy were persuaded to deal with Briggs by online advertisements such as: ‘$4K per day online business built for you. Full set up. Ad creatives. Ongoing support’; ‘For 5 people only I will find a winning product for you – build a high level online store – give you an automated supplier – make all the ads for you – help you get 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 Briggs v Lisale

Details

AGLC: Briggs v Lisale [2025] QCATA 48
Case: [2025] QCATA 48
Decision Date: 2 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Briggs v Lisale involved a dispute between a consumer and an individual respondent regarding a contract for services related to an ecommerce facility. The consumer, Briggs, sought to recover monies paid for services that proved to be defective. Lisale, the individual respondent, argued that any liability should be borne by a company rather than personally, and sought to have the action dismissed on the basis that Briggs had contracted with the company, not with him in his personal capacity. The tribunal had found that Lisale was liable under the agreement, leading to the current application for leave to appeal on issues of identity and due process.

The court had to decide whether Lisale acted as a servant or agent of the company and whether the agreement was made in Briggs’ personal capacity. Another issue was whether post-contractual evidence could unilaterally alter the terms of the agreement or the identity of the responsible party. The central question was whether the individual respondent could escape personal liability and whether the consumer's action against him should be dismissed.

The court held that the evidence supported the tribunal's finding that Lisale was liable under the agreement. The court found no merit in the argument that post-contractual evidence could alter the terms of the agreement or the identity of the responsible party. The court also rejected the claim that the action should be dismissed on grounds of identity and due process, holding that the individual respondent was indeed liable under the agreement. Given these findings, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The dismissal of the application for leave to appeal confirmed the original tribunal's decision. The court did not find any error in the tribunal's determination that Lisale was personally liable for the agreement, and therefore, the appeal was not permitted.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.