East Coast Electrical & Refrigeration Pty Ltd v Rellan Pty Ltd
[2012] QCATA 38
•23 February 2012
| CITATION: | East Coast Electrical & Refrigeration Pty Ltd v Rellan Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 38 |
| PARTIES: | East Coast Electrical & Refrigeration Pty Ltd (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Rellan Pty Ltd trading as Danreg Engineering (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL271-11 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Richard Oliver, Senior Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 23 February 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | Leave to appeal refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Minor Civil Dispute – where terms of contract vague – where applicant complied with its obligations under the contract Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, s 142(3) QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41 Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
East Coast Electrical engaged Danreg to manufacture a press tool in accordance with its order number ECO416-32 on 26 March 2009. The specified cost for the tool was $300 plus GST. In the order form, there is a description of what is to be manufactured. This order form followed a discussion between Mr Belle-Isle of East Coast Electrical and Mr Jones of Danreg. The order form stipulated that the tool was required by East Coast Electrical by 14 April 2009 with a cut off date for delivery to CSIRO of 21 April 2009.
The tool was manufactured and delivered it to East Coast Electrical on 16 April 2009. East Coast Electrical did not pay for the work because it was not of merchantable quality and not fit for the purpose.
Danreg commenced a proceeding in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction to recover the cost of manufacturing the tool as well as other money on outstanding invoices.
The matter came on for hearing before a Tribunal Adjudicator on 14 July 2011. In respect of the other claim, the learned Adjudicator dismissed that but ordered East Coast Electrical to pay to Danreg $407.46 for the cost of manufacturing the tool.
From that decision East Coast Electrical has filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal. Leave to appeal is necessary as this is an appeal from a decision in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the Tribunal.[1]
[1] QCAT Act, s 142(3).
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?[2] Is there a reasonable prospect that the applicant will obtain substantive relief?[3] Is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by some error?[4] Is there a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the appellate court or tribunal, would be to the public advantage?[5]
[2] QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[3] Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 at 2.
[4] QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[5]Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 at 389; McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577 at 578, 580.
In its initial response to the application, East Coast Electrical contended that the tool, referred to as modifications, were not made in accordance with Mr Belle-Isle’s instructions and did not work. That was expanded upon during the course of the hearing to contend that it was not fit for the purpose and did not comply with the written instructions contained in the order referred to above.
In the submissions in support of the application for leave to appeal East Coast Electrical solicitors relied on breach of the provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) in that Danreg had breached implied guarantees and warrantees as to the goods being fit for the purpose and being of merchantable quality and did not correspond with the details provided by the applicant in its purchase order. Further, it is contended that the learned Adjudicator failed to give sufficient weight or any weight to the evidence of East Coast Electrical’s expert as contained in the report from Schuler Design Solutions.
There does not seem to be any doubt that the tool as manufactured was not suitable for East Coast Electrical’s demonstration with the CSIRO. The learned Adjudicator certainly had regard to this and the expert’s report which detailed why the tool press was not able to perform the work the respondent had in mind. The question raised for the learned Adjudicator’s consideration was to decide the terms of the contract entered into between the parties having regard to the precision of the instructions given to Danreg for the work to be performed. This not only included the detail on the order but also the discussions between Mr Belle-Isle and Mr Jones. Another consideration was what could be reasonably expected for the cost of $300.00. He found that the description of work in the order was ambiguous and to try and ascertain the extent of what work was involved, he had regard to the cost. He made a finding, which was open on the evidence before him, that having regard to the order and the discussions that Danreg complied with the agreement reached and East Cost Electrical essentially got what it bargained for.
[10] He also dealt with the time frame for the delivery of the manufactured tool. Although the order stipulated that it be delivered on 14 April 2009 and it was delivered on 16 April, there was still sufficient time to meet the CSIRO cut off date. He ultimately concluded that the outstanding amount was payable.
[11] The applicant has not been able to identify any error of law or fact to warrant a grant of leave to appeal in accordance with the decided principles. Having reviewed the evidence, the transcript and considered the submissions nor is any apparent. There is no question of public importance and it is unlikely the applicant would obtain substantive relief if leave to appeal was granted. There is no error of law. In the circumstances leave to appeal is refused.
0
0
0