Charlesworth v Wilkinson
[2014] QCATA 214
•4 August 2014
| CITATION: | Charlesworth v Wilkinson [2014] QCATA 214 |
| PARTIES: | Brandon Charlesworth (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| Mike Wilkinson t/as Wilkinson Automotive Mechanical Repairs (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL244-14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member Stilgoe, OAM |
| DELIVERED ON: | 4 August 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Leave to appeal refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where work done on car – where owner disputed invoice – where tribunal found invoice properly rendered – whether grounds for leave to appeal Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Charlesworth owns a 1983 Daimler Sovereign. He had trouble with the brakes, so he took it to Mr Wilkinson for repairs. Mr Wilkinson repaired the brakes and rendered an invoice for $1,836.45. Mr Charlesworth has refused to pay Mr Wilkinson. He filed an application for relief from payment of the invoice and return of the car.
Two Justices of the Peace, sitting in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the tribunal, ordered Mr Charlesworth pay Mr Wilkinson and that the car be released only on payment.
Mr Charlesworth wants to appeal that decision. He says that the learned Justices’ findings were contrary to the agreement he had with Mr Wilkinson. He says that Mr Wilkinson admitted he breached the agreement by fitting non-genuine parts and carrying out work that Mr Charlesworth had not authorised.
Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.[1] Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.[2]
[1]QCAT Act s 142(3)(a)(i).
[2]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 at [3] per Keane JA.
The appeal tribunal will not usually disturb findings of fact on appeal if the evidence is capable of supporting the conclusions.[3] An appellate tribunal may interfere if the conclusion is ‘contrary to compelling inferences’ in the case.[4]
[3]Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 at 561; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 125-126.
[4]Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 at 10.
Both parties gave evidence. Mr Charlesworth told the learned Justices that he had one previous dealing with Mr Wilkinson in which there was an arrangement that Mr Charlesworth would source expensive parts for Mr Wilkinson to fit. He told the learned Justices he expected the same arrangement would apply to this repair. He also told the learned Justices that he took the car to Mr Wilkinson to find out what was wrong with the brakes, not for Mr Wilkinson to fix them without further reference[5].
[5]Transcript pages 1-12 to 1 – 14.
Mr Wilkinson told the learned Justices that he did tell Mr Charlesworth what was wrong with the car and that he repaired those problems. He told the learned Justices that he replaced the brake pads and rotors and overhauled the calipers. He told the learned Justices that there was 10½ hours of labour involved in the job, but he only charged Mr Charlesworth for 6 hours[6].
[6]Transcript pages 1-20 to 1 – 24.
Mr Wilkinson also told the learned Justices that he was not prepared to let Mr Charlesworth buy the parts because he would be liable if they failed. He told the learned Justices that he never allows customers to buy brake parts for him to fit[7].
[7]Transcript page 1-32, lines 34 – 44.
The learned Justices preferred Mr Wilkinson’s evidence. They accepted his explanation that, because he would be liable if the brakes failed, he would not allow a customer to supply brake parts. They found that Mr Charlesworth’s evidence was not convincing.
My sole duty is to determine whether there is an error in the primary decision. It is not my task to decide where the truth lay as between the competing versions given by the parties.[8] I have read the transcript. The learned Justices conclusions can be supported by the evidence and there is nothing in the evidence that persuades me the learned Justices should have taken a different view.
[8]Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 129 per Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Kirby JJ.
There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Justices were in error. Leave to appeal should be refused.
0
4
0