Davy v Ryter Planning Pty Ltd

Case [2010] QCATA 96
CITATION: Davy  v Ryter Planning Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 96

618

PARTIES: Mr Ron Davy
(Applicant/Appellant)
v
Ryter Planning Pty Ltd
(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:            APL159 -10              

MATTER TYPE:

HEARING DATE:   On the papers

HEARD AT:   Brisbane

DECISION OF: Justice Alan Wilson, President

DELIVERED ON:   6 December 2010

DELIVERED AT:   Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

Leave to appeal is refused
CATCHWORDS : 

MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – CONSUMER DISPUTE – PROFESSIONAL TOWN PLANNING CONSULTING SERVICES  –  JURISDICTION – where appellant engaged respondent for professional town planning consulting services – where service fees remained outstanding – where respondent filed a Minor Debt Claim – where Magistrate ordered  appellant to pay outstanding claim – whether claim was liquidated debt – whether Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the matter

MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – CONSUMER DISPUTE – LEAVE TO APPEAL – where appellant engaged respondent for professional town planning consulting services – where service fees remained outstanding –where appellant failed to appear at hearing – where Magistrate ordered  appellant to pay outstanding claim – whether learned Magistrate was entitled to proceed with the hearing – whether the decision is supported by evidence – whether leave should be granted

MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – CONSUMER DISPUTE – LEAVE TO APPEAL – NEW EVIDENCE – where appellant submitted new evidence – whether evidence was available prior to the hearing

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 57(1), 93(2), 142(3), Schedule 3

Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1, cited

Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd

[1984] 1 Qd R 404, applied

Council of the City of Greater Wollongong v Cowan (1955) 93 CLR 435, applied

Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549

Early Property Group Pty Ltd t/a Early Group

Valuers v Cavallaro [2010] QCATA 65, cited

Fox v Percy (2003) 197 ALR 201, applied

Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388, applied
 McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577, cited
Peoples & ors  v Thornton & ors [1995] QCA 188, applied
Spain v Union Steamship Company of New Zealand Ltd (1923) 32 CLR 138, applied
Quyd Pty Ltd Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41, cited

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard on the papers, pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. Ryter Planning Pty Ltd specialises in professional town planning consulting services. It filed a Minor Debt Claim against Mr Ron Davy in the Maroochydore Magistrates Court for recovery of fees associated with the provision of professional consulting services. Mr Davy filed a Defence contesting that he engaged Ryter Planning for any consulting services.

  1. The claim was subsequently transferred to QCAT’s Minor Civil Disputes jurisdiction. It was initially set down for mediation on two separate occasions, but Mr Davy failed to appear for both. A hearing was then listed for 2 June 2010 but adjourned because Mr Davy again failed to appear.

  1. The…

Continue reading Davy v Ryter Planning Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Davy v Ryter Planning Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 96
Case
[2010] QCATA 96
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Davy, an appellant, engaged Ryter Planning Pty Ltd, a respondent, for professional town planning consulting services. A dispute arose over outstanding service fees, leading the respondent to file a Minor Debt Claim. The Magistrate ordered the appellant to pay the outstanding claim, but the appellant sought to appeal this decision. The crux of the matter lay in whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and whether the Magistrate was entitled to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the appellant. Furthermore, the appellant submitted new evidence during the appeal process, raising questions about the availability of this evidence prior to the hearing.

The court had to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it had to ascertain whether the appellant's debt was a liquidated debt, thereby falling within the Tribunal's jurisdiction for a Minor Debt Claim. Secondly, the court needed to decide whether the Magistrate was justified in proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the appellant. Thirdly, it had to assess whether the decision made by the Magistrate was supported by the evidence presented. Finally, the court had to consider whether the appellant's submission of new evidence during the appeal warranted a review of the decision.

The court found that the debt was indeed a liquidated debt, confirming the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The court also held that the Magistrate was entitled to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the appellant, as the appellant had been duly notified and had the opportunity to appear. The decision was deemed to be supported by the evidence, and the court found that the new evidence submitted by the appellant was not available at the time of the hearing. Consequently, the court refused the leave to appeal, maintaining the Magistrate's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal is refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.