Harper v Reddell T/a All Wheels - [2010] QCAT 380

CITATION:Harper v Reddell t/a All Wheels [2010] QCAT 380

PARTIES:	Mr Dylan Harper
v
Mr Barry Trevor Reddell trading as All Wheels

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR080-10

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

Decision on the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Peta Stilgoe

DELIVERED ON:

4 August 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The time in which the applicant may lodge a claim against the fund is extended to 10 September 2010.

CATCHWORDS :

Extension of time – application lodged more than 12 months after the event - whether a reason for not lodging within time – whether merits of the claim warrant extension – where no information on hardship – whether justice of the matter requires extension – ss 470, 472, 511 and 574 of PAMDA

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Harper purchased a car from Mr Redell trading as All Wheels on 8 September 2008. Mr Harper did not see the car until after purchase, relying on a friend, Daniel, to test drive it and take delivery.
Daniel inspected the car on 29 August 2008. Mr Harper states that “Daniel told me he looked at the ‘checklist’ and there was no accident or water damage to the vehicle.”
Mr Harper took possession of the car on 13 September 2008. He noticed rust on the floor and seat frames. He conducted a vehicle check with Queensland Transport on 28 September 2008. That check revealed that the vehicle had water damage.
The claim against the fund was lodged on 11 February 2010. Section 472(2) of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act (“PAMDA”) requires that a claim against the fund be made within one year after a person becomes aware that he has suffered financial loss. Mr Harper’s claim has been filed out of time. He has applied to the tribunal for an extension of time in which to file the claim.
Section 511(1)(b) of PAMDA sets out the matters to which the tribunal may have regard in determining whether to extend time.

The reasons for not making the claim

Mr Harper says that:

a)He lodged a claim with the Queensland Office of Fair Trading (“Fair Trading”). His claim was being handled by a Ms Softa, who never mentioned to him that he should submit a claim against the fund.
b)Ms Softa sent Mr Harper and email on 16 December stating that his file was being transferred to another officer – Mr Leishman - as she was being transferred to another section.
c)Mr Harper contacted Mr Leishman after Christmas 2008. Mr Leishman told him that the case had been sent to the legal team and all that Mr Harper could do was wait.
d)Mr Harper contacted Mr Leishman several more times in the first half of 2009 only to be told the same thing. Mr Leishman did not tell Mr Harper that he…

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 Harper v Reddell T/a All Wheels

Details

AGLC: Harper v Reddell T/a All Wheels [2010] QCAT 380
Case: [2010] QCAT 380
Decision Date: 4 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harper v Reddell T/a All Wheels was brought before the court, with the applicant seeking an extension of time to lodge a claim against the Third Party Motor Accident Insurance Fund. The application was made more than 12 months after the event, which created a significant procedural hurdle. The primary issue for the court was to determine whether the applicant had provided a satisfactory reason for the delay, and if the merits of the claim warranted an extension of time under the provisions of the Motor Accident Insurance (Third Party) Act 1985 (PAMDA).

The court considered whether the applicant had demonstrated a valid reason for not lodging the application within the stipulated time frame. The applicant argued that the delay was due to a combination of factors, including the complexity of the case and the need for further medical assessment. The court examined the applicant's evidence and noted that while there was no information provided regarding any potential hardship resulting from the delay, the merits of the claim did warrant consideration. The court also took into account the principle that justice of the matter requires an extension, as outlined in sections 470, 472, 511, and 574 of PAMDA.

After evaluating the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay and that the merits of the claim warranted an extension of time. The court concluded that the justice of the matter required the extension, and accordingly, granted the application for an extension of time. The court extended the time in which the applicant could lodge the claim to 10 September 2010, thereby allowing the applicant to pursue their claim against the Third Party Motor Accident Insurance Fund.

Orders

Orders of the court

The time in which the applicant may lodge a claim against the fund is extended to 10 September 2010.

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.