Drane v Taylor

[2022] QCATA 12

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Drane v Taylor [2022] QCATA 12

PARTIES:

MATTHEW NEVILLE DRANE

(applicant/appellant)

v

LAUREN MAREE TAYLOR

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL104-21

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO5/20 Bundaberg

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

3 February 2022

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC

ORDERS:

1.     Application for leave to appeal from the decision of the Tribunal of 11 March 2021 dismissed.

2.     Any submissions in writing by the appellant as to why no order for costs should be made must be filed in the Tribunal, and a copy served on the solicitor for the respondent, within twenty-one days from the date of this decision.

3.     If such submissions are filed and served, the respondent may file and serve submissions in writing in reply within fourteen days from the date of service of the appellant’s submissions, and the Appeal Tribunal will determine the application for costs on the papers on a date to be fixed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – application for leave to appeal – whether bias or apparent bias – whether failure to accord natural justice – whether applicant had proved his case – application for leave dismissed

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 3(b); s 13(1); s 28(2); s 28(3)(b); s 142(3)(a)(i).

Breezeway Developments Pty Ltd v ADG Hydraulics Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 69
Campbell v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCATA 34
Crime and Corruption Commission v Lee [2019] QCATA 38
Gunter v Wilkins [2021] QCA 274
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294
The Pot Man Pty Ltd v Reaoch [2011] QCATA 318
Wilkins v Gunter (No 2) [2021] QCATA 42

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	R Whyte, solicitor.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is an application for leave to appeal from the decision of a Member of the Tribunal in a Minor Civil Debt claim. The appellant claimed that the respondent owed him money as a consequence of two loans he had made to her. Following a hearing, a Member of the Tribunal[1] rejected the appellant’s claims, on the basis that he had not proved that the payments made by him to the respondent were loans, rather than gifts.

   [1]A Magistrate sitting as a Member under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“the QCAT Act”), s 171(2).

2. Because this matter was a minor civil dispute, leave is required to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal.[2] As a general proposition, when leave to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal is required, it will be granted only where there is a reasonable argument that the decision was attended by error and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice caused by that error, or where the appeal raises a question of general importance upon which further argument and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal would be to the public advantage.[3] In deciding whether grounds for leave to appeal have been shown, it…