Goonan v Tang - [2024] QCATA 85

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Goonan v Tang [2024] QCATA 85

PARTIES:

JACKOB GOONAN

(applicant/appellant)

v

ANTHONY TANG

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL199-23

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCD 116/23

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

1 August 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the Papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Richard Oliver

ORDERS:

1.     Leave to appeal is granted.

2.     The appeal is allowed

3.     The decision of the Tribunal dated 21 June 2023 is set aside.

4.     The applicant must pay to the respondent the sum of $5,635 by 30 September 2024.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – JURISDICTION – FRESH EVIDENCE – where respondent commenced a minor civil dispute proceeding claiming damages for defective and incomplete work for the construction of a trailer – where the applicant failed to appear at the hearing of the application – where decision entered in default of appearance – where tribunal failed to assess damages and give reasons – where applicant sought to lead fresh evidence – whether error of law – whether practical to remit the matter for reconsideration.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, s 142(3)(a)(i) and sch 3

Terera & Anor v Clifford [2017] QCA 181.

Rintoul v State of Queensland & Ors [2018] QCA 20

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

On 28 February 2023 Mr Tang commenced a proceeding in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the Tribunal claiming a total of $8,282.31 from Mr Goonan as a “minor debt”. The particulars of the claim recite that he entered into a contract with Mr Goonan to build closed in trailer for a total cost of $23,000. On collecting the trailer after retaining $1,000 for defects, he identified further defects and non-compliance with the contract specifications.
Mr Teng had discussions with Mr Goonan about these issues, with promises by Mr Goonan to fix the defects and address the non-compliance. Despite these discussions, the negotiations broke down and Mr Tang decided not to engage with Mr Goonan any further.
After some interlocutory skirmishes, including setting aside a default decision for failing to file a response, the matter came on for hearing before a tribunal adjudicator on 21 June 2023 Mr Goonan did not appear at the hearing. The learned adjudicator, made a decision that Mr Goonan pay Mr Teng the sum of $8,282.31.
In support of his claim, Mr Tang contended in the filed documents that the cost of repairs for the defects was $8,000 and this formed the substance of his claim. In a submission to the Tribunal, before the hearing dated 20 April 2023, he provided particulars of the cost of repairs as follows:
(a)Placing the breakaway system [registration and contractor requirement closed bracket
(b)Placing a rego. plate light (registration and contract requirement).
(c)Stamp the vin number on the chassis(registration and contract requirement) - item…

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 Goonan v Tang

Details

AGLC: Goonan v Tang [2024] QCATA 85
Case: [2024] QCATA 85
Decision Date: 1 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Goonan v Tang involved the respondent, Tang, who filed a minor civil dispute claim against the applicant, Goonan, for damages resulting from defective and incomplete work on the construction of a trailer. Goonan did not appear at the hearing of the application, leading to a default judgment in favour of Tang. The tribunal, however, did not assess the damages or provide reasons for its decision, which was a matter of contention. Subsequently, Goonan sought to introduce fresh evidence and argued that the tribunal had failed to consider this, leading to a flawed decision. The central legal issues were whether the tribunal's failure to assess damages and provide reasons constituted an error of law, and if it was practical to remit the matter for reconsideration.

The court examined the nature of the tribunal's error, noting that it had not assessed damages and provided reasons, which is a fundamental aspect of decision-making in such cases. The tribunal's oversight was deemed significant as it affected the substantive fairness of the proceedings. The court also considered the principle that tribunals must provide reasons for their decisions, which was lacking here. In light of these issues, the court held that the tribunal's failure to assess damages and provide reasons was indeed an error of law. Furthermore, the court determined that remitting the matter for reconsideration was practical, as the evidence was not complex and could be easily reviewed by the tribunal.

The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the tribunal was set aside. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $5,635 by 30 September 2024. The court's decision underscores the importance of tribunals adhering to procedural fairness and providing reasoned decisions, particularly in cases where damages are claimed. The outcome ensures that the respondent receives appropriate compensation for the defective work, while also correcting the procedural shortcomings identified in the tribunal's original decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal is allowed

3. The decision of the Tribunal dated 21 June 2023 is set aside.

4. The applicant must pay to the respondent the sum of $5,635 by 30 September 2024.

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.