Dann v Gold Coast City Council

CITATION: Dann v Gold Coast City Council [2013] QCATA 220

PARTIES:	Mr Gordon Dann (Appellant)
V
Gold Coast City Council (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL173 -13

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe OAM, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 9 August 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.  Leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS:

MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where Council appeared by in-house lawyer – where no leave for legal representation – where Council given leave to attend by telephone – where Council appeared in person – whether grounds for leave to appeal

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 29, 43, Schedule 3

Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549;
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118.

Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388

McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577
Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The appeal tribunal heard and determined this matter on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr Dann left his car, boat and trailer parked on the street at the Gold Coast.  The Council placed “Notice to Owner” stickers on the vehicles a number of times, indicating that it thought they had been abandoned. Finally, the Council impounded the vehicles. Mr Dann eventually reclaimed the vehicles but he wanted the Council to pay him damages and reimburse the storage costs it had charged him while the vehicles were impounded.

2. The Council claimed that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider Mr Dann’s claim. The tribunal agreed and dismissed the application.

3. Mr Dann wants to appeal that decision. He says that the Council had indicated it would appear by telephone but the lawyer appeared in person. He says that the Council appeared at the hearing through an in-house lawyer, without leave, which was unfair. He says that the facts of the case support a finding in his favour.

4. Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary. The question whether or not leave to appeal should be granted is usually addressed according to established principles. Is there a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision?[1]  Is there a reasonable prospect that the applicant will obtain substantive relief?[2]  Is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice caused by some error?[3]  Is there a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the appeals tribunal, would be to the public advantage?[4]

   [1]        QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.

   [2]        Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 at 2.

   [3]        QUYD Pty…