Charter Yachts (Qld) Pty Ltd v Ridley - [2025] QCATA 17

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Charter Yachts (Qld) Pty Ltd v Ridley [2025] QCATA 17

PARTIES:

CHARTER YACHTS (QLD) PTY LTD

(applicant/appellant)

v

MONIKA RIDLEY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL040-24

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

Q1823-23

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

27 February 2025

HEARING DATE:

6 February 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Traves
Member Munasinghe

ORDERS:

1. Leave to appeal is allowed.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – where no application for leave to rely on fresh evidence made – where further evidence attached to application for leave to appeal – where evidence not taken into account – where adjudicator erred in fact in summarising the evidence of the respondent as to the terms of the ‘bond deduction’ document – where leave to appeal allowed – whether effect of document is that bond should be forfeited – where document to be read together with terms of Charter agreement – where decision to deduct amounts from security bond subject to clause 14.4 – where, given findings of Adjudicator, Operator not acting reasonably in making deduction – where no error in factual findings demonstrated – where appeal dismissed

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3(b), s 11, s 142, s 147, Schedule 3

Crime and Corruption Commission v Lee [2019] QCATA 38

Campbell v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCATA 34
Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2024] QCA 225
Warren v Coombes [1978-1979] 142 CLR 531

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is an application for leave to appeal and/or appeal against the decision of the Tribunal on 16 November 2023 to allow the claim made by Monika Ridley for a refund of the security deposit she had paid as a condition of a boat charter. The learned Adjudicator ordered Charter Yachts (Qld) Pty Ltd pay the sum of $5,148.60, being the amount of the deposit paid and the court filing fee, to Monika Ridley within 21 days of the order.
Charter Yachts seek to appeal that decision.
As that decision was made in a proceeding for a minor civil dispute, the applicant must first obtain the Appeal Tribunal’s leave to appeal.[1]
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act), s 142(3)(a)(i).
As a general proposition, when leave to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal is required, it will be granted only where there is a reasonable argument that the decision was attended by error and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice caused by that error, or where the appeal raises a question of general importance upon which further argument and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal would be to the public advantage.[2]
[2]Crime and Corruption Commission v Lee [2019] QCATA…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Charter Yachts (Qld) Pty Ltd v Ridley and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QCATA 17
Decision Date: 27 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Charter Yachts (Qld) Pty Ltd v Ridley is a case concerning the interpretation and application of a Bareboat Charter Agreement and the subsequent claim for a refund of a security bond. Ms Ridley chartered a yacht from Charter Yachts under a Bareboat Charter Agreement, which included a condition that a security bond of $5,000 would be forfeited if certain events occurred during the charter. The yacht ran aground and was damaged while Ms Ridley attempted to moor at Palm Bay, leading to Charter Yachts retaining the security bond. Ms Ridley brought a claim in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the Tribunal seeking a full refund of the security bond, which was ultimately granted by the Adjudicator. Charter Yachts appealed the decision, raising two grounds for appeal.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the Adjudicator correctly interpreted the terms of the documents signed by the charter parties and whether Ms Ridley made a misleading statement to the court. The court found that the Adjudicator did not err in the interpretation of the documents and that Ms Ridley's claim of difficulty in communication with Charter Yachts was not implausible. The court further found that the Adjudicator's decision that Ms Ridley was not negligent in the safe operation of the vessel was not incorrect, given Charter Yachts' failure to provide an up-to-date navigational guide and their recommendation of Palm Bay as a safe anchorage.

The court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the Adjudicator's findings were not glaringly improbable and that Charter Yachts had not demonstrated that the Adjudicator erred in fact or law. The court upheld the Adjudicator's decision that there was no basis for retaining the security deposit and ordered that Charter Yachts refund the deposit to Ms Ridley within 21 days. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was granted.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is allowed.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

If leave is granted, the appeal, being one against a decision on a question of fact or question of mixed law and fact, must be decided by way of rehearing.[4][4]QCAT Act, s 147.The background Ms Ridley entered into a Bareboat Charter Agreement with Charter Yachts to charter a 14 metre monohull yacht called Morpheus around the Whitsunday Islands. One of the conditions of the charter was the payment of a ‘security bond’ of $5,000 which was to be forfeited should certain events occur during the charter. While Ms Ridley was in the course of attempting to moor the yacht at Palm Bay it ran aground, as a consequence of which the vessel was damaged. The cost to repair the vessel was approximately $9,500. Ms Ridley claimed the cause of the accident was the failure of Charter Yachts to provide her with an up-to-date navigational guide. The current version would have shown that the yacht could not enter the Palm Bay lagoon, in which case she says she would never had attempted to do so. Charter Yachts claimed the accident was caused by Ms Ridley’s poor seamanship and her failure to contact them in advance to notify them of her intention to moor there overnight (in which case, it says, it would have told her not to do so). Charter Yachts retained the security bond of $5,000 and refused Ms Ridley’s demand for return of the money. Ms Ridley brought a claim in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the Tribunal seeking a full refund of the security bond from Charter Yachts.The decision The Adjudicator found in favour of Ms Ridley, ordering that Charter Yachts refund the security deposit to her. In arriving at that decision the learned Adjudicator found:(i) Ms Ridley was a very experienced sailor and well qualified to control Morpheus;(ii) On the final night of the charter, due in the main to weather conditions, Ms Ridley made a decision to move the vessel from Happy Bay to Palm Bay;(iii) A term of the charter required the hirers of the vessel to report to the base several times a day, in particular as to where the boat would be moored overnight;(iv) Ms Ridley had difficulty on the day of the incident in communicating with base either by radio or by mobile phone;(v) Ms Ridley relied on the Navigation Guide (version 13) in selecting Palm Bay as her overnight mooring;(vi) A representative of Charter Yachts, Mr Hodder, had recommended Palm Bay as a safe and appropriate anchorage for the last night of the charter; (vii) Version 13 of the Navigation Guide indicated the inside moorings at Palm Bay were suitable for vessels up to 14 metres in length;(viii) Version 13 had been superseded by Version 14 which was not on the vessel. Version 14 indicated the inside moorings were restricted to vessels up to 6 metres in length with shallow drafts;(ix) Had Ms Ridley been given access to version 14, she would ‘never have even contemplated attending the Palm Bay mooring’;(x) The grounding occurred when Ms Ridley realised that the vessel would not fit in the lagoon;(xi) There was a significant failure by Charter Yachts to properly maintain information it made available to its customers;(xii) Charter Yachts were negligent in failing to have corrected version 13 or the recommendation as to Palm Bay provided by Mr Hodder;(xiii) It could not be said that the damage occasioned to the vessel was caused by negligent acts or omissions or poor seamanship by Ms Ridley;(xiv) Accordingly, there was no basis for retaining the security deposit and Charter Yachts were ordered to refund the deposit to Ms Ridley within 21 days.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Ms Ridley brought a claim in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the Tribunal seeking a full refund of the security bond from Charter Yachts.The decision The Adjudicator found in favour of Ms Ridley, ordering that Charter Yachts refund the security deposit to her. In arriving at that decision the learned Adjudicator found:(i) Ms Ridley was a very experienced sailor and well qualified to control Morpheus;(ii) On the final night of the charter, due in the main to weather conditions, Ms Ridley made a decision to move the vessel from Happy Bay to Palm Bay;(iii) A term of the charter required the hirers of the vessel to report to the base several times a day, in particular as to where the boat would be moored overnight;(iv) Ms Ridley had difficulty on the day of the incident in communicating with base either by radio or by mobile phone;(v) Ms Ridley relied on the Navigation Guide (version 13) in selecting Palm Bay as her overnight mooring;(vi) A representative of Charter Yachts, Mr Hodder, had recommended Palm Bay as a safe and appropriate anchorage for the last night of the charter; (vii) Version 13 of the Navigation Guide indicated the inside moorings at Palm Bay were suitable for vessels up to 14 metres in length;(viii) Version 13 had been superseded by Version 14 which was not on the vessel. Version 14 indicated the inside moorings were restricted to vessels up to 6 metres in length with shallow drafts;(ix) Had Ms Ridley been given access to version 14, she would ‘never have even contemplated attending the Palm Bay mooring’;(x) The grounding occurred when Ms Ridley realised that the vessel would not fit in the lagoon;(xi) There was a significant failure by Charter Yachts to properly maintain information it made available to its customers;(xii) Charter Yachts were negligent in failing to have corrected version 13 or the recommendation as to Palm Bay provided by Mr Hodder;(xiii) It could not be said that the damage occasioned to the vessel was caused by negligent acts or omissions or poor seamanship by Ms Ridley;(xiv) Accordingly, there was no basis for retaining the security deposit and Charter Yachts were ordered to refund the deposit to Ms Ridley within 21 days. The Adjudicator did not accept the submissions by Charter Yachts that the grounding was a result of poor seamanship; that there ought to have been ‘spotters’ on deck to check for reefs; that the fact the outside moorings were full should have been cause for Ms Ridley to pause before attempting to enter the lagoon; or that a tender should have been sent ashore to gain relevant information.Grounds of Appeal Charter Yachts have not addressed the issue of leave to appeal. There are two grounds of appeal. We propose to consider the grounds raised by Charter Yachts and Ms Ridley’s response with a view to determining whether leave to appeal should be given, and, if so, whether the appeal should be allowed. The grounds are as follows:(i) The Adjudicator failed to give any weight on the document which the applicant signed at the beginning of the charter stating that she was solely responsible for any loss or damage once the vessel was in her control.(ii) The applicant submitted a misleading statement to the court stating that she had no means of contacting Charter Yachts by either mobile phone or radio and was negligent in the safe operation of a vessel.Ground One: No weight given to the terms of the documents signed by the charter parties

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The appeal is not allowed in relation to ground one.Ground Two: The applicant made a misleading statement to the court stating she had no means of contacting CYA by either mobile phone or radio and was negligent in the safe operation of a vessel. Charter Yachts submitted that Ms Ridley misled the court because she must have been able to contact Charter Yachts, given she made calls to them after the grounding. However, there is a factual finding by the Adjudicator that Ms Ridley had difficulty on the day of the incident in communicating with base either by radio or by mobile phone. Charter Yachts has not shown that factual finding to be glaringly improbable on the evidence. As Ms Ridley submitted, the fact she could contact Charter Yachts after the accident does not prove she could not contact them prior to the accident. She had given evidence during the initial hearing that the radio worked ‘on and off’ and that mobile reception was variable. Further, for the error alleged to be relevant and material, Charter Yachts would need to prove that, had Ms Ridley made a call to Charter Yachts, that they would have advised her that Palm Bay lagoon was no longer accessible by boats 6 metres or over in length. Although Mr Mole gave evidence in the hearing that if Charter Yachts had been advised they were going to Palm Bay, they would have told them not to go there,[7] no such finding was made. Indeed, and to the contrary, the Adjudicator found that a representative of Charter Yachts, Mr Hodder, had recommended to Ms Ridley before they left in Morpheus that Palm Bay was a safe and appropriate anchorage for the last night of the charter.[7]Transcript at 1-4, at [20]-[25]. Further, Charter Yachts submit that Ms Ridley was negligent in the safe operation of a vessel. The learned Adjudicator made a finding that Ms Ridley was not negligent. While we acknowledge that a decision of this nature is an evaluative one, and that an Appeal Tribunal will be in as good a position as the Adjudicator to decide on the proper inference to be drawn from the established facts, giving proper weight and respect to the conclusion drawn by the Adjudicator we see no reason to intervene.[8] Charter Yachts, by providing an out-of-date and incorrect Navigational Guide, and by encouraging Ms Ridley to anchor at Palm Bay on the final night of the charter, created a dangerous situation in which Ms Ridley manoeuvred Morpheus into a bay that was too shallow for her vessel. In the circumstances the learned Adjudicator found Ms Ridley was not negligent, and we find that Charter Yachts did not prove to the contrary.[8]Warren v Coombes [1978-1979] 142 CLR 531 at 551. The Adjudicator has not erred in this respect.Conclusion For the above reasons, we dismiss the appeal.