Carta v Tilley - [2019] QDC 186

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Carta v Tilley [2019] QDC 186

PARTIES:

PAUL CARTA
(appellant)

v

CHRISTOPER TILLEY
(first respondent)

and

CLAIRE LEONIE TILLEY
(second respondent)

FILE NOS:

MAG55820/2017; Appeal 1876/2019

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 September 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 September 2019

JUDGE:

McGill SC, DCJ

ORDER:

Leave to appeal; Appeal allowed; Order of the Magistrates Court of 1 May 2019 set aside; Order under the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 s 26 that the proceeding pending in the Magistrates Court at Brisbane between the parties be transferred to the District Court. Order that the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal; Grant the respondents an indemnity certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 s 15(2).

CATCHWORDS:

INFERIOR COURTS – Magistrates Court – Jurisdiction – transfer of proceeding to QCAT – whether errors in discretion to transfer – whether transfer reasonable – whether consequential order valid – order for transfer set aside.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 53.

Cypressvale Pty Ltd v Retail Shop Lease Tribunal [1996] 2 Qd R 462 – cited.
Drew v Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 219 – cited.
King v ASIC [2018] QCA 352 – cited.
March v Metrotek Constructions Pty Ltd [2011] QDC 376 – considered.
Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412 – cited.
Ramzy v Body Corporate for GC3CTS 38396 [2012] QDC 397 – followed.
Rozenblit v Vainer (2018) 262 CLR 478 – cited.
Sutton v Tang [2015] QDC 191 – followed.
Wyatt v Albert Shire Council [1987] 1 Qd R 486 – cited.

COUNSEL:

S K Long for the appellant

T Mwilambwe (solicitor) for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Celtic Legal for the appellant.

GTC Lawyers for the respondents.

On 1 May 2019 this matter which was then pending in the Magistrates Court at Brisbane was ordered to be transferred to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal pursuant to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (“the Act”) s 53. The only other order made was that costs be reserved. The appellant, who was the plaintiff below, seeks leave to appeal against that order pursuant to the Magistrates Court Act 1921 s 45(2). At the hearing the respondents did not oppose either the grant of leave or that the appeal be allowed, pointing out that the order had not been sought by them and had been made by the acting magistrate on his own initiative. In my opinion it was quite wrong for the acting magistrates to have so ordered, and it is appropriate to grant leave to appeal, allow the appeal, and set aside that order. The reasons for this are as follows.

Background

By a claim filed on 6 December 2017 the plaintiff claimed $7,300 as money payable by the defendants under an agreement, or in the alternative damages in that sum for breach of the agreement. The claim is essentially a…

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 Carta v Tilley

Details

AGLC: Carta v Tilley [2019] QDC 186
Case: [2019] QDC 186
Decision Date: 26 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Carta v Tilley, the dispute arose between the appellant and the respondents in the Magistrates Court. The appellant sought to appeal a decision transferring their case to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), arguing that the Magistrates Court had erred in its discretion to transfer the proceeding. The case was heard in the District Court of Queensland. The appellant contended that the transfer was unreasonable and that the consequential order was invalid.

The central legal issues the court was required to address were whether the Magistrates Court had correctly exercised its discretion to transfer the proceeding to QCAT and whether the transfer order was reasonable and valid. The court needed to determine if the Magistrates Court had adequately considered the relevant factors and if the decision was within the scope of its powers under the Civil Proceedings Act 2011. The court also examined whether the transfer order was valid and if it should be set aside.

The court found that the Magistrates Court had erred in its discretion to transfer the proceeding to QCAT. The decision to transfer was unreasonable as the court had not adequately considered the relevant factors and the transfer order was not within the scope of its powers under the Act. The court set aside the order of the Magistrates Court and allowed the appeal. The court ordered that the proceeding be transferred to the District Court and directed the respondents to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal. The court also granted the respondents an indemnity certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal; Appeal allowed; Order of the Magistrates Court of 1 May 2019 set aside; Order under the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 s 26 that the proceeding pending in the Magistrates Court at Brisbane between the parties be transferred to the District Court. Order that the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal; Grant the respondents an indemnity certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 s 15(2).

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.

CITATION:	Carta v Tilley [2019] QDC 186
PARTIES:	PAUL CARTA (appellant) v CHRISTOPER TILLEY (first respondent) and CLAIRE LEONIE TILLEY (second respondent)
FILE NOS:	MAG55820/2017; Appeal 1876/2019
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	26 September 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 September 2019
JUDGE:	McGill SC, DCJ
ORDER:	Leave to appeal; Appeal allowed; Order of the Magistrates Court of 1 May 2019 set aside; Order under the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 s 26 that the proceeding pending in the Magistrates Court at Brisbane between the parties be transferred to the District Court. Order that the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal; Grant the respondents an indemnity certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 s 15(2).
CATCHWORDS:	INFERIOR COURTS – Magistrates Court – Jurisdiction – transfer of proceeding to QCAT – whether errors in discretion to transfer – whether transfer reasonable – whether consequential order valid – order for transfer set aside. Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 53. Cypressvale Pty Ltd v Retail Shop Lease Tribunal [1996] 2 Qd R 462 – cited. Drew v Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 219 – cited. King v ASIC [2018] QCA 352 – cited. March v Metrotek Constructions Pty Ltd [2011] QDC 376 – considered. Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412 – cited. Ramzy v Body Corporate for GC3CTS 38396 [2012] QDC 397 – followed. Rozenblit v Vainer (2018) 262 CLR 478 – cited. Sutton v Tang [2015] QDC 191 – followed. Wyatt v Albert Shire Council [1987] 1 Qd R 486 – cited.
COUNSEL:	S K Long for the appellant T Mwilambwe (solicitor) for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Celtic Legal for the appellant. GTC Lawyers for the respondents.