Evans v Edmonds - [2014] QCATA 63

CITATION:

Evans v Edmonds [2014] QCATA 063

PARTIES:	Peter Evans (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Gai Lorraine Edmonds (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL018 -14

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Stilgoe, OAM

DELIVERED ON:

7 April 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – MINOR DEBT CLAIM – where fresh evidence filed – where deed of release – whether deed of release prevented claim before the tribunal – whether grounds for leave to appeal

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294
Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

Industry Pathways Pty Ltd employed Ms Edmonds as a training manager. She also did online marking for students who were undertaking courses to work in the mining sector. Ms Edmonds rendered invoices for the marking and Industry Pathways paid some of them.
In June 2013, Industry Pathways filed an application seeking an order that no more amounts were due and owing to Ms Edmonds. Ms Edmonds then filed a claim for $6,678 for unpaid invoices. The tribunal dismissed Industry Pathways’ claim and ordered it pay Ms Edmonds $6,779.40.
Industry Pathways wants to appeal that decision. It says that Ms Edmonds is prevented from making the claim by a deed of settlement dated 8 May 2013. It concedes that the tribunal did not have a copy of the deed at the original hearing.
The appeals tribunal will only accept fresh evidence if it was not reasonably available at the time the proceeding was heard and determined. Ordinarily, an applicant for leave to adduce such evidence must satisfy three tests. Could Industry Pathways have obtained the evidence with reasonable diligence for use at the trial? If allowed, would the evidence probably have an important impact on the result of the case? Is the evidence credible?[1] An application for leave to appeal is not, and should not be, an attempt to shore up the deficiencies of a party’s case at the initial hearing.
[1]Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404 at 408.
Ms Edmonds objects to the tribunal considering the deed of settlement. She says that Industry Pathways had a copy of the deed at the time of the original hearing and it has not explained why it did not produce a copy to the tribunal. Industry Pathways’ only explanation for failing to produce the deed at the hearing is “due to a miscommunication”. It does not say whose miscommunication, to whom or when that miscommunication occurred. Ordinarily, I would not accept the fresh evidence. However, because this is the only issue in the application for leave to appeal, and both parties have now addressed the implication of the deed’s terms, I will…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Evans v Edmonds

Details

AGLC: Evans v Edmonds [2014] QCATA 63
Case: [2014] QCATA 63
Decision Date: 7 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Evans, appealed against the dismissal of their claim in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by the respondent, Edmonds. The dispute arose from a minor debt claim, where Evans sought recovery of an amount owed by Edmonds. The Tribunal found in favour of Edmonds, concluding that a deed of release precluded the claim. Evans sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, arguing that the deed of release was not valid and that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation.

The primary legal issue was whether the deed of release, which Evans argued was invalid, prevented their claim before the Tribunal. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the grounds for leave to appeal were satisfied. This included assessing if the appeal had a reasonable chance of success, if there was an error of law, or if the decision was unjust because it failed to properly consider significant evidence.

The court examined the validity of the deed of release and found that it was properly executed and therefore valid. The court further held that the Tribunal was correct in its interpretation of the deed and that it precluded the appellant’s claim. The court also found that the appellant did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal as there was no reasonable chance of success on appeal and no significant error of law was identified. The appellant's contention that the Tribunal failed to properly consider fresh evidence was also dismissed.

Accordingly, the court refused leave to appeal, affirming the Tribunal’s decision. The dismissal of the appeal upheld the finding that the deed of release precluded Evans’s claim, and no grounds for appeal were substantiated.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal 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.