Ducat v Wilson

[2020] QCATA 141

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Ducat v Wilson [2020] QCATA 141

PARTIES:

GLENN RICHARD DUCAT

(applicant/appellant)

v

KIM NICOLE WILSON

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL355-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO60060-19 Brisbane

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

21 September 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:

1.   Application for leave to adduce fresh evidence refused.

2.   Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – where the applicant brought minor debt proceedings claiming repayment of loan monies – where the applicant and respondent had been living in a de facto relationship – where the respondent denied that she agreed to repay money spent by the applicant on her behalf as a loan – where the matter was heard by an Adjudicator – where the applicant failed to establish an agreed loan between the parties during the relationship – where the Adjudicator dismissed the claim – where the applicant sought leave to appeal – where the basis of appeal was limited to an application to adduce fresh evidence – where the application to adduce evidence was refused

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571

Cohen v Cohen [1929] HCA 15

Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc [2002] HCA 8

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

PS Business Holdings Pty Ltd v Duncan & Anor [2010] QCATA 19

REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented
APPEARANCES:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The applicant (‘Mr Ducat’) and the respondent (‘Ms Wilson’) met in December 2016 and started living in a de facto relationship in April 2017. They ended the relationship in January 2019.

2. When the relationship ended Mr Ducat asked Ms Wilson to repay to him money he said he had loaned her during the relationship. She refused, claiming that, save for one loan in relation to a motor vehicle, which she repaid, it had never been agreed between them that money he paid on her behalf was a loan.

3. Mr Ducat commenced minor civil dispute – minor debt proceedings in the Tribunal.

4. The matter was heard by an Adjudicator on 8 November 2019. The Adjudicator dismissed Mr Ducat’s claim.

5. He has filed an application for leave to appeal that decision.

6. Given this is an appeal from a decision made in the Tribunal’s minor civil dispute jurisdiction, leave to appeal must first be obtained. If leave is granted then the appeal may proceed.[1] 

   [1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142(3)(a)(i).

7. Leave to appeal will usually only be granted where an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the appellant and where there is a reasonable argument that there is an error to be corrected.[2] 

   [2]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294.

Grounds of Appeal

1. Mr Ducat raises no claim that the decision of the learned Adjudicator…