Copley v Storm Water Consulting Pty Ltd

CITATION:

Copley v Storm Water Consulting Pty Ltd [2017] QCATA 141

PARTIES:

Gregory Copley
(Applicant/Appellant)

v

Storm Water Consulting Pty Ltd

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL253-17

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

4 December 2017

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member I. Hanger AM QC

DELIVERED ON:

4 December 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142(3)(a)(i)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), r 81

Breezeway Developments Pty Ltd v ADG Hydraulics Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 69

Green & Ors v Pearson [2014] QCA 110

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

Gregory Copley

RESPONDENT:

Mr Rogers

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The originating application is a proceeding against the respondent for fees outstanding for work done. It is a minor civil dispute.

2. This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of a delegate of 5 July 2017 in which the delegate declined to order Storm Water Consulting Pty Ltd (Storm) to disclose certain documents. 

3. Section 142(3)(a)(i) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) provides, inter alia, that an appeal against a decision in a proceeding for a minor civil dispute may be made only if the party has obtained the appeal tribunal’s leave to appeal.

4. Mr Copley therefore needs leave to appeal. Rule 81 of QCAT Rules 2009 provides:

   (1)     A party to a proceeding for a minor debt claim can not require another party to the proceeding to disclose documents in the possession or under the control of the other party and directly relevant to an allegation in issue in the proceeding, unless the tribunal orders otherwise.

   (2)     However, all parties to the proceeding must make all relevant documents available at the hearing of the proceeding.

5. Rule 81 involves the exercise of a discretion by the delegate on a matter of practice and procedure. The Queensland Court of Appeal in Green & Ors  v Pearson [2014] QCA 110 referred, with approval, to Liao v New South Wales [2014] NSWCA 71 in which it was said:

   The discretionary nature of the decisions means that appellant intervention is warranted only on grounds identified in House v R [1936] 55 CLR 499 at 504-5 including that the decision is affected by extraneous or irrelevant matters or the judge mistakes the facts, acts on a wrong principle or does not take into account a material consideration or the decision is unreasonable or plainly unjust. The fact that matters of practice and procedure only are involved means that the appellate court should exercise the ‘added restraint’ that those circumstance attract ... and be ‘extremely reluctant to interfere’.

6. The clear intention of the QCAT Legislation was to minimise costs formality and the undue delay involved in civil litigation.  Hence Rule 81 was clearly designed to minimise the cost of disclosure in small claims.  It is legitimate to take that into account (Green & Ors v Pearson [2014] QCA 110).

7. Hence, Mr Copley requires leave to appeal.…