Cahill v Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Cahill v Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd [2025] QCATA 44

PARTIES:

DAVID CAHILL

(applicant/appellant)

v

RIDESHARE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL371-23

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

Q50405-23

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

22 April 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Fitzpatrick
Member D Brown

ORDERS:

1.     Leave to appeal is refused.

2.     The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW AND/OR FACT – LEAVE TO APPEAL – where application for minor civil dispute was granted – where the respondent applied for leave to appeal or appeal the decision – whether the application was filed within time – whether leave to appeal should be granted

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE OR TERRITORY COURTS – PARTIES AND REPRESENTATION – REPRESENTATION – GENERALLY – where representation opposed by other party – whether it was unfair for a general manager of the company to appear on behalf of the company at the hearing rather than the director of the company – whether it was an error of law to allow the application to proceed

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 48, s 66J, s 142(3), s 143(4)

Hall v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCATA 108

Rintoul v State of Queensland & Ors [2018] QCA 20 [10]

Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165

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

1. David Cahill seeks leave to appeal and, if leave is granted, to appeal a decision made in the minor civil disputes’ jurisdiction of the Tribunal on 19 September 2023 that Mr Cahill pay to Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd (‘Rideshare’) the sum of $2,197.53 within 28 days.

2. The judgment sum is principally comprised of an amount of $1,976.36 for the repair of damage to the front bumper bar and grille area of an MG motor vehicle which was hired by Mr Cahill from Rideshare for a period of approximately six months, for use in an “Uber” style business.

3. Mr Cahill disputed that he was the cause of the damage and disputed that he was bound by the written terms of a contract which would make him liable for any damage to the vehicle. As to the latter point Mr Cahill said that he digitally signed a rental agreement but he could not print the rental agreement and was uncertain as to the terms appended to the document sent to him for signing.

The decision

1. The Adjudicator found that Mr Cahill signed the rental agreement. She relied upon his acknowledgement in this regard. The Adjudicator found that the terms in relation to payment for damage caused to the rental vehicle appeared in five pages of a document which was provided to Mr Cahill…