Geragotelis v Reid - [2020] QCATA 63

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Geragotelis v Reid [2020] QCATA 63

PARTIES:

NICKOLAS GERAGOTELIS
(appellant)

v

PAUL REID

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL166-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO 47/19

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

27 April 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Hughes

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to appeal granted.

2.   Appeal allowed.

3.   The Orders made on 24 May 2019 are set aside.

4.   The proceedings instituted by Application
MCDO 47/19 are remitted to a different Tribunal panel or an Adjudicator for rehearing.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – leave to appeal – where Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for decision – where appellant challenged evidence and produced own at first instance – where parties must be satisfied that Tribunal has given them answer to their issues – where Tribunal at first instance did not explain basis for findings or why it accepted evidence or preferred other evidence – where Tribunal at first instance did not set out legal basis for decision or law being applied – where failure to give adequate reasons amounted to denial of procedural fairness – where error of law for which leave should be granted to correct substantial injustice

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28, s 121, s 143

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
Body Corporate for Rosegum Villas v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2015] QCATA 125
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577
Mistero Pty Ltd v Cann [2017] QCATA 56
Phu v NSW Department of Education and Training [2010] NSWADTAP 76

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41

REPRESENTATION:

Appellants:

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
What is this appeal about?

Nickolas Geragotelis sold Paul Reid a motor scooter for $850. Mr Reid claimed the scooter did not work. Mr Geragotelis denied this. Two Justices of the Peace allowed Mr Reid’s claim. Mr Geragotelis appealed.
After hearing from both sides, the learned Justices gave their decision. The hearing transcript reveals the following exchange:[1]
[1]Transcript, page 1-12, lines 7-36.
TRIBUNAL JP: All right. Welcome back, Mr Geragotelis. Please take your seat. This is the matter number 47 of ’19. We have Paul Reid as the applicant; Nick Geragotelis as the respondent. Mr Reid bought a motorcycle/scooter from Mr Geragotelis. He tells us that it failed/stopped working, and he took it to a mechanic recommended by Mr Geragotelis and, apparently, he’s…

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 Geragotelis v Reid

Details

AGLC: Geragotelis v Reid [2020] QCATA 63
Case: [2020] QCATA 63
Decision Date: 27 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Geragotelis v Reid was an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The appellant challenged the AAT's decision to dismiss his appeal against the refusal of an application for a visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Tribunal found that the appellant did not satisfy the character requirements of the Act because he had been convicted of an offence in Australia and of another offence overseas. The appellant argued that the AAT erred in its findings and did not provide adequate reasons for its decision.

The central issue was whether the appellant was entitled to leave to appeal against the AAT's decision. The appellant claimed that the AAT failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, which amounted to an error of law and a denial of procedural fairness. The appellant also argued that the AAT did not set out the legal basis for its decision or explain why it accepted certain evidence over others. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the AAT's decision was correct and that the appellant's appeal should be dismissed.

The court found that the appellant was entitled to leave to appeal because the AAT's failure to provide adequate reasons for its decision amounted to an error of law and a denial of procedural fairness. The court held that the AAT's failure to explain the basis for its findings or why it accepted certain evidence over others, and its failure to set out the legal basis for its decision, was a significant error that went to the heart of the appeal. The court also found that the appellant's arguments had sufficient merit to warrant a rehearing of the matter before a different Tribunal panel or an Adjudicator. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the orders made on 24 May 2019, and remitted the proceedings to a different Tribunal panel or an Adjudicator for rehearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. The Orders made on 24 May 2019 are set aside.

4. The proceedings instituted by Application

MCDO 47/19 are remitted to a different Tribunal panel or an Adjudicator for rehearing.

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.

CITATION:	Geragotelis v Reid [2020] QCATA 63
PARTIES:	NICKOLAS GERAGOTELIS (appellant)
v
PAUL REID (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL166-19
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	MCDO 47/19
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	27 April 2020
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Hughes
ORDERS:	1. Leave to appeal granted. 2. Appeal allowed. 3. The Orders made on 24 May 2019 are set aside. 4. The proceedings instituted by Application MCDO 47/19 are remitted to a different Tribunal panel or an Adjudicator for rehearing.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – leave to appeal – where Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for decision – where appellant challenged evidence and produced own at first instance – where parties must be satisfied that Tribunal has given them answer to their issues – where Tribunal at first instance did not explain basis for findings or why it accepted evidence or preferred other evidence – where Tribunal at first instance did not set out legal basis for decision or law being applied – where failure to give adequate reasons amounted to denial of procedural fairness – where error of law for which leave should be granted to correct substantial injustice Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28, s 121, s 143 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 Body Corporate for Rosegum Villas v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2015] QCATA 125 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291 Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577 Mistero Pty Ltd v Cann [2017] QCATA 56 Phu v NSW Department of Education and Training [2010] NSWADTAP 76 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41
REPRESENTATION:
Appellants:	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).