| CITATION: | Grommen v Hawes [2018] QCATA 49 |
| PARTIES: | Martinus Hendrikus Peter Grommen (Appellant) |
| v | |
| Shelley Maree Hawes (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL229-17; APL230-17 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Member Hughes |
| DELIVERED ON: | 18 April 2018 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Leave to appeal refused. | ||
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH TRIBUNAL’S FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL – WHERE FINDINGS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – where claim for unliquidated damages – where claim not between two ‘traders’ because engaged in professional discipline of real estate services – where claim not ‘minor civil dispute’ – where claim not within jurisdiction – where set-off not within jurisdiction APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH TRIBUNAL’S FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL – WHERE FINDINGS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – where no express provision in deed restraining alleged behaviour – whether implied term – where no evidence of necessity to imply restraint of trade – where restraint of trade must be clear and definite – where no error to not imply restraint of trade Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 12, s 143, Schedule 3 Bowes v Shand (1877) 2 App. Cas. 455 Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Carlton & United Breweries Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 468 Early Property Group Pty Ltd v Cavillario [2010] QCATA 65 | ||
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
REASONS FOR DECISION
What is this appeal about?
Martinus Grommen and Shelly Hawes entered into a ‘Deed of Company and Trust Dissolution and Sale’[1] to dissolve their business. Things did not go to plan and they each filed an ‘Application for minor civil dispute – minor debt’ in the Tribunal’s minor civil disputes jurisdiction.
[1] Deed dated 7 November 2016.
On 20 June 2017, the Tribunal dismissed Mr Grommen’s application and also ordered that he pay the sum of $4,928.05 for unpaid commissions into the account operated by their business,…
Continue reading Grommen v Hawes
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Grommen v Hawes [2018] QCATA 49
- Case
- [2018] QCATA 49
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal considered the principles governing appellate review of findings of fact and the role of an appellate tribunal in such cases. The Court emphasised that where findings of fact are based on documentary evidence, the appellate court should not lightly interfere with those findings. The Court further noted that the claim was not between two 'traders' in the context of professional discipline of real estate services, and therefore, the restraint of trade clause was not applicable. Additionally, the Court held that there was no evidence to support the implication of a restraint of trade clause, as such a clause must be clear and definite.
The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's decision and dismissed the appeal. The Court found that there was no error in the primary judge's refusal to imply a restraint of trade clause in the deed, and that the claim was not within the jurisdiction of the court. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, and the decision of the primary judge remained intact.
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.