Callaghan v Reid Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd

[2012] QCATA 59

CITATION: Callaghan v Reid Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 59

PARTIES:	Suzanne Leigh Callaghan (Applicant)
v
Reid Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd   (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:            APL371-11               

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE:   On the papers 

HEARD AT:   Brisbane

DECISION OF: Mr Charles Brabazon QC, Member

DELIVERED ON:   28 February 2012

DELIVERED AT:   Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:  1.   Refuse leave to appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers in accordance with s32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 2 September 2011, at the Toowoomba Magistrates Court, a QCAT Magistrate made an order against Ms Susan Callaghan.  She did not appear.  The Tribunal ordered her to pay Reid Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd the amount of $339.42, including interest and costs.

1. QCAT refused to stay that decision, on 28 October 2011.

1. This appeal is “on the papers”.  I have read all the documents on the file including various submissions by Ms Callaghan.  I have listened to the audio recording of the Toowoomba proceedings.  She did not appear.  Mr Reid, an engineer, appeared and gave evidence.

1. In my opinion, leave to appeal should be refused.  The appeal has no prospects of success.  That is for the following reasons.

1. Living in social housing, she became concerned about her house’s condition.  An engineer came to inspect the house.  She telephoned Mr Reid’s office and explained that she wanted an independent inspection done.  That was on 1 March 2011.

1. Mr Reid attended her house on 8 March, but she was out.

1. On 10 March, a further appointment was made, for 15 March.  She apologised for not being there on 8 March.  Mr Reid attended, but was told by her that his services were not required.

1. There is no reason to reject Mr Reid’s evidence, and the reasonableness of the fees charged.  It appears that Ms Callaghan changed her mind, about the need for an independent report, which would have to be paid for.

1. She did send some medical reports or records to the Magistrates Court when asking in writing for an adjournment.  The Magistrate referred to them, at the start of the proceeding.  He decided to proceed, saying that the nature of her illness was not clear, its severity was uncertain, her ability to participate in proceedings was uncertain, and that it was not clear when she might be available – all in the context of a claim for a small amount of money.

1. Mr Reid did say that Ms Callaghan was in tears, when first speaking to his office.  That observation together with my own reading of her written statements, and the medical reports, leads to the conclusion that she was probably not in good mental health at the time.  It is not possible to understand all the implications of the report, which do show that she faces surgery for a neurological condition.  On the other hand, her written statements show that she is capable of defending her own interests, in a coherent way.

1. The Magistrate had a discretion to exercise in deciding if the case should proceed in her absence.  It seems that his decision to go ahead was a reasonable one in all the circumstances.  Those who send medical reports to the court and do not appear, and are not represented, can not be confident that they will be given an adjournment.

1. There is no reason to think that any appeal would result in a different finding.

1. Leave to appeal is refused.