Hall v Freeman - [2018] QCATA 159

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Hall v Freeman [2018] QCATA 159

PARTIES:

JEFF HALL
(appellant)

v

REGAN FREEMAN

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL150-18

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

Richlands Claim 88/17

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

23 October 2018

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Acting Senior Member Paratz

ORDERS:

1.   The application to extend a time limit to file an application for leave to appeal or appeal filed on 18 September 2018 is refused.

2.   The Application for a Stay of the Order made on 20 December 2017 is dismissed.

3.   The application for leave to appeal or appeal filed on 18 September 2018 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – ILLEGAL AND VOID CONTRACTS – EFFECT OF ILLEGALITY OR INVALIDITY – deposit – where a motor vehicle was advertised for sale, and possession passed, without a Safety Certificate in breach of transport regulations – whether contract is illegal and unenforceable – where a part payment was made – whether part payment was a non-refundable deposit

Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 2010 (Qld), reg 23, reg 24, Sch 4

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Barnes [2014] QCA 152
Braunberger v Assistant Commissioner Les Hopkins [2014] QCAT 34
Buckland v Massey [1985] 1 Qd R 502
Gardener and Ors v Chief Executive, Office of Liquor & Gaming Regulation and Anor [2011] QCAT 542

Eastern Leader Co Pty Ltd v Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry [2013] QCAT 463

REPRESENTATION:

Appellant:

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) (‘QCAT Act’)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Hall says that he sold a car to Mr Freeman on the basis that Mr Freeman was to obtain a Roadworthy Certificate, and that Mr Freeman left a $400 deposit on the car.[1]
[1]Letter, Jeff Hall to QCAT, 20 October 2017.
Mr Hall says that Mr Freeman decided to not purchase the car because of ‘cost concerns’, and asked for his money back.[2]
[2]Ibid.
Mr Hall refused to refund the initial payment of $400 to Mr Freeman.
Mr Freeman filed an Application in the Tribunal for Minor Civil Dispute which was heard by an Adjudicator on 20 December 2017. An order was made as follows:
The respondent refund the amount of $400.00 to the Applicant within 21 days of today.
Mr Hall filed an Application for leave to appeal or appeal on 2 July 2018, which was outside the 28 day appeal period. He then filed an application to extend the time limit to file the application for leave to appeal or appeal on 18 September 2018.
The Appeal Tribunal directed on 7 September 2018 that the application to extend time would be determined on the papers not before 5 October 2018. This is the decision on that application.
Mr Hall also filed an application for a stay of the decision of 20 December 2017…

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 Hall v Freeman

Details

AGLC: Hall v Freeman [2018] QCATA 159
Case: [2018] QCATA 159
Decision Date: 23 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hall v Freeman, the dispute arose between the plaintiff, Hall, and the defendant, Freeman, regarding the sale of a motor vehicle. The key issue was whether a contract for the sale of a vehicle was illegal and unenforceable because it contravened certain transport regulations that required the vehicle to have a Safety Certificate before it could be sold. The case was heard and determined by the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the contract for the sale of the vehicle was illegal and thus unenforceable, due to the failure to comply with the relevant transport regulations. Specifically, the court had to determine if the absence of a Safety Certificate for the vehicle made the contract void or if any payments made could be reclaimed. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether a part payment made by the plaintiff constituted a non-refundable deposit.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 2010 (Qld), which required a Safety Certificate for the sale of a motor vehicle. The court found that the contract was indeed illegal because the vehicle was sold without the necessary Safety Certificate, as required by the regulations. Consequently, the contract was void and unenforceable. Furthermore, the court held that the part payment made by the plaintiff was not a refundable deposit but rather consideration for the illegal agreement. As a result, the plaintiff was not entitled to any refund of the amount paid. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself, confirming the decision of the lower court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to extend a time limit to file an application for leave to appeal or appeal filed on 18 September 2018 is refused.

2. The Application for a Stay of the Order made on 20 December 2017 is dismissed.

3. The application for leave to appeal or appeal filed on 18 September 2018 is dismissed.

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:	Hall v Freeman [2018] QCATA 159
PARTIES:	JEFF HALL (appellant)
v
REGAN FREEMAN (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL150-18
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	Richlands Claim 88/17
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	23 October 2018
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Acting Senior Member Paratz
ORDERS:	1. The application to extend a time limit to file an application for leave to appeal or appeal filed on 18 September 2018 is refused. 2. The Application for a Stay of the Order made on 20 December 2017 is dismissed. 3. The application for leave to appeal or appeal filed on 18 September 2018 is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – ILLEGAL AND VOID CONTRACTS – EFFECT OF ILLEGALITY OR INVALIDITY – deposit – where a motor vehicle was advertised for sale, and possession passed, without a Safety Certificate in breach of transport regulations – whether contract is illegal and unenforceable – where a part payment was made – whether part payment was a non-refundable deposit Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 2010 (Qld), reg 23, reg 24, Sch 4 Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Barnes [2014] QCA 152 Braunberger v Assistant Commissioner Les Hopkins [2014] QCAT 34 Buckland v Massey [1985] 1 Qd R 502 Gardener and Ors v Chief Executive, Office of Liquor & Gaming Regulation and Anor [2011] QCAT 542 Eastern Leader Co Pty Ltd v Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry [2013] QCAT 463
REPRESENTATION:
Appellant:	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) (‘QCAT Act’)