Capable Consulting (Aust) Pty Ltd v Garget

Case [2009] QDC 404

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Capable Consulting (Aust) Pty Ltd v Garget [2009] QDC 404

PARTIES:

CAPABLE CONSULTING (AUST) PTY LTD and PARTRECK MUTOKOYI

Appellants

AND

PETER DOUGLAS GARGET

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

Appeal 1822/09

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 December 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 November 2009

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Leave to appeal; appeal allowed; decision of the Tribunal of 29 May 2009 annulled; case remitted to the Tribunal for rehearing, in accordance with the following directions:

(a)    the rehearing is to take place before a person other than the member of the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal who conducted the original hearing;

(b)   on the rehearing the Tribunal is to disregard the purported order of 6 October 2008.

Order the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

INFERIOR TRIBUNALS – Commercial and Consumer Tribunal – duty to give reasons – whether reasons adequate – whether leave to withdraw part of counterclaim properly given

JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – Statement of Reasons for Decision – whether adequate – conclusions only stated – error of law

Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003 ss 62, 65(2).

Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wraith(1983) 48 ALR 500 – cited.
Bawden v ACI Operations Pty Ltd [2003] QCA 293 – cited.
Beale v GIO of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 – cited.
Camden v McKenzie [2007] QCA 136 – cited.
Clements v Flower [2005] QDC 50 – followed.
Cypressvale Pty Ltd v Retail Shop Lease Tribunal [1996] 2 Qd R 462 – applied.
Drew v Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 66 – applied.
Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd (2002) 209 CLR 478 – applied.
Paulger v Hall [2003] 2 Qd R 294 – applied.
Pioneer Industries Pty Ltd v Baker [1997] 1 Qd R 514 – applied.
Poiner v Quirk [2007] QDC 299 – followed.
RES 1 v Medical Board of Queensland [2008] QCA 152 – cited.
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 – cited.
Suncorp Insurance and Finance v Hill [1998] QCA 112 – cited.

COUNSEL:

J.P. O’Regan for the appellants

D.H. Katter for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Maunsell Pennington for the appellants

Vanderleur & Todd for the respondent

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal dated 29 May 2009.  The respondent before me had applied to that tribunal for an amount payable under building contract, damages for breach of the contract, costs and interest.  The appellants defended and counterclaimed for costs of rectification and/or completion of contract works and loss of rent; credit was given for the unpaid final payment of the contract price.  On 29 May 2009 the Tribunal, after a three-day hearing in January that year, gave judgment.  The counterclaim was allowed in part but only to the extent of $3,600; judgment was given for the unpaid final instalment of $17,720, less this amount, a balance of $14,120.[1]

    [1]The actual…

Continue reading Capable Consulting (Aust) Pty Ltd v Garget

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Capable Consulting (Aust) Pty Ltd v Garget [2009] QDC 404
Case
[2009] QDC 404
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Capable Consulting (Aust) Pty Ltd v Garget involved a dispute between a consulting firm and an individual over a counterclaim that was part of a larger commercial litigation. The matter was heard by the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal, and subsequently came before the court on appeal. The consulting firm, the appellant, challenged the adequacy of the Tribunal's reasons for its decision and the granting of leave to withdraw part of the counterclaim.

The central legal issues in this appeal were whether the Tribunal's reasons for its decision were adequate and whether the leave to withdraw part of the counterclaim was properly granted. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's Statement of Reasons was deficient because it only stated conclusions without providing adequate reasoning. Furthermore, the appellant contested the appropriateness of the leave granted for the respondent to withdraw part of the counterclaim.

In its decision, the court held that the Tribunal's Statement of Reasons was inadequate because it did not provide sufficient reasoning to justify its conclusions. This constituted a significant error of law. The court also found that the leave to withdraw part of the counterclaim was not properly given, as it had not considered the potential impact on the fairness of the proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the decision of the Tribunal was annulled, and the case was remitted for a rehearing before a different Tribunal member. The court further directed that the rehearing should disregard a previous order made on 6 October 2008. Additionally, the court ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, to be assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal; appeal allowed; decision of the Tribunal of 29 May 2009 annulled; case remitted to the Tribunal for rehearing, in accordance with the following directions:

(a) the rehearing is to take place before a person other than the member of the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal who conducted the original hearing;

(b) on the rehearing the Tribunal is to disregard the purported order of 6 October 2008.

Order the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal to be assessed.

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.