Callil v Kosonen - [2018] QCATA 62

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:	Callil v Kosonen [2018] QCATA 62
PARTIES:	Peter Callil (Appellant)
v
Samuel Kosonen (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	APL312-17
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
HEARING DATE:	24 April 2018
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Hughes
DELIVERED ON:	4 May 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	Leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – CONTROL OVER PROCEEDINGS – where allegations of bias and denial of natural justice – where Tribunal has mandate to deal with matters quickly – where appellant was given opportunity to present case – where appellant relied on written statement of independent witness – where appellant did not seek or arrange to have his independent witness attend hearing to give evidence in person or by telephone – where not hearing evidence by telephone was not denial of natural justice – where appellant had obligation to act in own best interests and call relevant witnesses APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – interference with adjudicator’s findings of fact – where appellant disputed finding of fact on causation – where motor vehicle collision in car park – where evidence capable of supporting findings – whether grounds for leave to appeal Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 4, s 28, s 43, s 143 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Regulation – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 (Qld), r 296, 297, r 299 Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 Creek v Raine & Horne Mossman [2011] QCATA 226 Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 Kilpatrick v Tighnabruaich Properties Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 208 Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577 Piric & Anor v Claudia Tillier Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 152 QUYPD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41 Selvanayagam v University of the West Indies [1983] 1 All ER 824 Slater v Wilkes [2012] QCATA 12
APPEARANCES:
APPELLANT:	Mr Peter Callil appeared in person
RESPONDENT:	Mr Samuel Kosonen appeared in person

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this appeal about?

Peter Callil and Samuel Kosonen had a car accident in a car park. Mr Callil was reversing his Hiace Van from its parking space onto the carriageway. Mr Kosonen was driving his Ford Ranger along the carriageway. Their vehicles collided.
An Adjudicator apportioned 90 percent responsibility for the accident to Mr Callil and 10 percent responsibility to Mr Kosonen. The learned Adjudicator ordered that Mr Callil pay Mr Kosonen $1,720.80.
Mr Callil wants to appeal that…

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 Callil v Kosonen

Details

AGLC: Callil v Kosonen [2018] QCATA 62
Case: [2018] QCATA 62
Decision Date: 4 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Callil v Kosonen involved the appellant, Callil, and the respondent, Kosonen. The dispute centred on allegations of bias and a denial of natural justice in the proceedings before the Tribunal. The court of appeal was tasked with determining whether the Tribunal's handling of the case met the required standards of fairness and impartiality.

The primary legal issues were whether the Tribunal's decisions demonstrated interference with the appellant's procedural rights and whether the Tribunal's findings of fact were supported by the evidence. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's refusal to hear the evidence of an independent witness via telephone constituted a denial of natural justice. The court examined whether the Tribunal's decision not to permit this form of evidence was unreasonable and whether the appellant had a duty to ensure that relevant witnesses were available to give evidence in person or by other means.

The court found that the Tribunal's decision not to hear evidence by telephone did not amount to a denial of natural justice, as the appellant had an obligation to act in their own best interests by ensuring that relevant witnesses were available to testify. The court also concluded that the Tribunal's findings of fact were supported by the evidence and that there was no basis for interference with those findings. Consequently, the court refused the leave to appeal.

No further orders were made beyond the refusal of leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal 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.