Christie v Little - [2011] QCATA 161

CITATION:

Christie v Little and Anor [2011] QCATA 161

PARTIES:	Ms Julie Dawn Christie
v
Ms Michelle Susan Little, Mr David Newton

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL054-11

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Richard Oliver, Senior Member
Peta Stilgoe, Member

DELIVERED ON: 5 July 2011

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1. Leave to appeal granted.

2.Appeal allowed.

That the respondents pay the applicant $24,708.96 within 21 days of the date of this order.Decision of 1 December 2010 set aside and the following decision substituted: 3.

CATCHWORDS:

MINOR CIVIL DISPUTES – where loan between sisters – where terms of loan silent about repayment – where Member found that terms of loan uncertain and dismissed claim

LOAN – where request for loan made by sister but payment made to brother-in-law – whether sister liable for repayment of those amounts

INTEREST – where claim for interest from date of loan – where basis of claim for interest not explained – where no explanation for delay in seeking recovery

APPEALS – whether grounds for leave to appeal – where first respondent challenged interim order joining second respondent – whether challenge within time

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, s 142(3)(a)(ii)

Ogilvie v Adams [1975] VR 1041
Young v Queensland Trustees Ltd (1952) 99 CLR 560

Boyd-King & Anor v Evans & Anor [2002] QDC 072
Manson v Collins [2010] QCATA 63

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Oliver

In this matter the Appeal Tribunal consisted of Ms Stilgoe, QCAT Member and me. I have had the benefit of reading her reasons in draft. I agree with her reasons, and her conclusions, and the order she proposes.

Ms Stilgoe

Ms Christie and Ms Little are sisters; Mr Newton is Ms Little’s estranged husband. Over the course of almost 12 months, at Ms Little’s request, Ms Christie lent $21,290.00 to cover a range of household and business expenses. As one might expect between sisters, the terms of the loans were not reduced to writing.

Ms Little admitted that she was indebted to her sister in the sum of $6,300 but denied liability for the balance on the ground that Ms Christie made those payments to Mr Newton.

At the hearing of the dispute, the learned Member dismissed Ms Christie’s claim because the terms of the repayment were uncertain. Ms Christie has filed an application for leave to appeal on the basis that the learned Member’s decision in this regard was an error of law.

Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil dispute jurisdiction, leave is necessary. Leave to appeal will ordinarily only be granted where there is some question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage; or, there is a reasonably arguable case of…

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 Christie v Little

Details

AGLC: Christie v Little [2011] QCATA 161
Case: [2011] QCATA 161
Decision Date: 5 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Christie v Little was heard in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT) of New South Wales, where the primary dispute was over a loan of $10,000 made by the appellant, Christie, to her sister, the respondent Little. The loan was made in 2005, with the terms of repayment being left uncertain. Christie brought proceedings to recover the loan amount plus interest. The respondent, Little, argued that she was not liable for the debt, as the loan was made to her husband, and not to her personally. The respondent also challenged the interim order joining her husband as a party to the proceedings, asserting that the order was made beyond the allowable timeframe.

The legal issues before the tribunal were whether the loan was made to Little personally, and if so, whether she was liable for the repayment of the loan. Additionally, the tribunal had to consider whether interest could be claimed from the date of the loan and whether there were grounds for an appeal against the interim order joining Little's husband as a party to the proceedings. The tribunal also had to consider the basis for the claim of interest and the explanation for the delay in seeking recovery of the loan.

In its decision, the tribunal found that the terms of the loan were uncertain, as the loan agreement did not specify who the loan was made to, and therefore, Christie could not recover the loan amount. The tribunal also found that Little was not personally liable for the loan, as the loan was made to her husband. Furthermore, the tribunal found that the claim for interest was not adequately substantiated, and there was no explanation for the delay in seeking recovery. The tribunal dismissed Christie's claim in its entirety. In relation to the appeal, the tribunal found that the challenge to the interim order joining Little's husband as a party was not within the allowable timeframe, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The tribunal made an order dismissing Christie's claim against Little and her husband, and dismissing the appeal. The tribunal also made a costs order, awarding costs to Little and her husband against Christie.

Orders