QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
DENNIS V CJD MECHANICAL REPAIRS PTY LTD [2025] QCATA 53
PARTIES:
SUSAN KAY DENNIS (applicant)
V
CJD MECHANICAL REPAIRS PTY LTD (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
APL142-23
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:
Q617-22 (Southport)
MATTER TYPE:
Appeals
DELIVERED ON:
22 May 2025
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
A/Senior Member Lember
ORDERS:
1. The application for leave to rely on fresh evidence filed 7 June 2023 is refused.
2. Leave to appeal is refused.
3. The application for leave to appeal or appeal filed 17 May 2023 is dismissed.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The applicant, Ms Dennis, owns a 1996 Jeep Cherokee to which the respondent, CJD Mechanical Repairs Pty Ltd (CJD) carried out mechanical works between May and December 2020.
On…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Dennis v CJD Mechanical Repairs Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2025] QCATA 53
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court was an appeal by Ms. Dennis against the decision of the Adjudicator in a minor civil dispute consumer case against CJD Mechanical Repairs Pty Ltd. The dispute pertained to mechanical services provided to Ms. Dennis. The Adjudicator had dismissed Ms. Dennis's claim for compensation. Ms. Dennis sought leave to appeal the Adjudicator's decision and to adduce new evidence. The primary legal issues revolved around whether the Adjudicator erred in applying the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), whether the Adjudicator adequately considered Ms. Dennis's evidence and submissions, and if procedural fairness was upheld during the hearing.
The court found that Ms. Dennis's appeal did not identify any error of law in the Adjudicator's decision. The court noted that the Adjudicator's reasons were detailed and considered all relevant evidence and submissions. The court held that Ms. Dennis had not demonstrated any error in the application of the ACL or that the Adjudicator disregarded material facts. Regarding procedural fairness, the court observed that there was no evidence of any procedural unfairness in the handling of the case by the Registry or the Adjudicator. Ms. Dennis's claims of being 'bombarded' by questions and feeling unwell did not establish procedural unfairness. The court also found that the Adjudicator's reasons were sufficient, as they addressed the key issues and evidence presented in the case. The application for leave to rely on new evidence was also dismissed, as the evidence was deemed to be cumulative or not relevant to the issues before the court.
The court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal. The court held that there was no basis for the appeal as the Adjudicator's decision was not legally erroneous and adequately addressed the issues before it. The application for leave to rely on new evidence was also denied, as it did not provide any new or relevant information that could affect the outcome of the case. Consequently, the orders of the Adjudicator were upheld, and Ms. Dennis's appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
The court found that Ms. Dennis's appeal did not identify any error of law in the Adjudicator's decision. The court noted that the Adjudicator's reasons were detailed and considered all relevant evidence and submissions. The court held that Ms. Dennis had not demonstrated any error in the application of the ACL or that the Adjudicator disregarded material facts. Regarding procedural fairness, the court observed that there was no evidence of any procedural unfairness in the handling of the case by the Registry or the Adjudicator. Ms. Dennis's claims of being 'bombarded' by questions and feeling unwell did not establish procedural unfairness. The court also found that the Adjudicator's reasons were sufficient, as they addressed the key issues and evidence presented in the case. The application for leave to rely on new evidence was also dismissed, as the evidence was deemed to be cumulative or not relevant to the issues before the court.
The court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal. The court held that there was no basis for the appeal as the Adjudicator's decision was not legally erroneous and adequately addressed the issues before it. The application for leave to rely on new evidence was also denied, as it did not provide any new or relevant information that could affect the outcome of the case. Consequently, the orders of the Adjudicator were upheld, and Ms. Dennis's appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for leave to rely on fresh evidence filed 7 June 2023 is refused.
2. Leave to appeal is refused.
3. The application for leave to appeal or appeal filed 17 May 2023 is dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Ms Dennis, in summary, relies on the following grounds of appeal:(a)Ground 1 - The ACL was not properly applied, having regard to information contained in ACCC publications on claiming compensation, consumer rights and guarantees and motor vehicles, submissions and evidence filed by Ms Dennis. Specifically, she says the learned Adjudicator:(i) failed to consider s 18 of the ACL (misleading and deceptive conduct), and(ii) did not correctly apply s 60 (guarantee as to due care and skill) and s 61 (guarantee as to fitness for a particular purpose).(b)Ground 2 - Ms Dennis says the learned Adjudicator disregarded material facts and evidence in her application and only relied upon CJD's reply to decide her application. Material evidence disregarded by the learned Adjudicator is said to have included the legal basis to support her compensation claim at the hearing (including her three-page detailed costing and ACCC publications), and the outcome of her complaint to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).(c)Ground 3 - Ms Dennis says the learned Adjudicator relied upon incorrect or irrelevant information in making the decision, including:(i) questions directed to her failure to supply sworn statements of Seven Slot Off Road and Motive Mechanical, even though her application does not mention that she took her Jeep to either of those businesses for the purpose of them assessing CJD's work, and(ii) false and misleading information provided by CJD, which, she says, was relied on to the exclusion of her own.(d)Ground 4 - Ms Dennis says she was denied procedural fairness by:(i) Registry failing to inform her that a reply had been emailed by the respondent on 12 December 2022,(ii) being denied a sufficient opportunity to review CJD's reply filed 12 December 2022, which was only handed to her at the hearing, and(iii) not being permitted by the learned Adjudicator to discuss the legal basis of her compensation order, to tender her supporting information to it, nor to respond to the filed Reply, and(iv) being 'bombarded' by the learned Adjudicator's questions, and by feeling 'very unwell' and 'powerless to do anything about this at the time'.(e)Ground 5 - The learned Adjudicator's reasons were inadequate because they did not consider her evidence or submissions, costings, or information regarding the ACL.Application for leave to rely on new evidence By an application filed 7 June 2023, Ms Dennis seeks leave to rely upon evidence and submissions that are only contained within her application for reopening filed on 28 February 2023 that, she says:(a)explain why she believes ss 18, 60, 61 and 62 of the ACL were contravened, and(b)address three questions asked of her by the learned Adjudicator during the hearing and included in his reasons for the decision. Ms Dennis says that:[8]I only provided the material facts and evidence in my application filed on 18 November 2022 and did not explain how I had applied consumer guarantees under Australian Consumer Law (ACL) to support my compensation order because this is all I thought I had to do at this time.[8]Application for leave to appeal or appeal, Attachment to Part C, page 1, paragraph 1.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.