Harris v Martinez - [2023] QCATA 59

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Harris v Martinez [2023] QCATA 59

PARTIES:

RONALD LESLIE HARRIS

(applicant/appellant)

v

GRANT BRADLEY MARTINEZ

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL008-22

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO54/21

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

6 June 2023

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Cranwell

ORDERS:

1. Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – leave to appeal – minor civil dispute – whether dispute falls within definition of minor civil dispute

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 57, s 142, schedule 3

Allen v Dungey [2015] QDC 167
Environmental Systems Pty Ltd v Peerless Pty Ltd [2008] VSCA 26
Financial Advisers Australia v Mooney & Anor [2016] QCATA 181

Saxer v Hume [2022] QCATA 25

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 6 December 2021, an adjudicator dismissed an application for a minor civil dispute brought by Mr Harris against Mr Martinez.
Mr Harris has applied for leave to appeal that decision. Leave to appeal is required pursuant to section 142(3)(a)(i) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), as the application was for a minor civil dispute.

The proceedings before the adjudicator

On 8 September 2021, Mr Harris filed an application for a minor civil dispute. He sought an amount of $12,500, being the amount he paid to Mr Martinez for the purchase of the vessel ‘James McCabe’, plus costs.
Mr Harris set out the basis of his claim in the application as follows:
‘Note’ line three of his ready made receipt/document, he states (The Vessel is sold free of all encumbrances). In fact Officers with the Maritime Services Queensland who how have the vessel told me they had been attempting to take the vessel for two and a half years.
The adjudicator was provided with a receipt for the purchase of the vessel dated 7 April 2021. The receipt provided:
Received from Capt C Ronnie the sum of $10,000 (Then Thousand Dollars) being full price for the Vessel James McCabe registered Number XA861Q.
The vessel is sold free of all encumbrances.
The purchaser has been notified and acknowledges the liability to remove the vessel from Qld Waters to enable survey inspection prior to being placed back in the water after satisfactory inspection.
The vessel is to be removed from Steiglitz Boat Yard mooring area prior to 16 April 2021 otherwise the purchaser will be liable for rent due from that date to Steiglitz boat yard. Vessel includes all building materials on board.
The purchaser has been notified and acknowledges the above conditions and that the vessel requires repair or replacement to both engines and will need to be towed to a suitable boat lifting facility.
Mr Harris claimed that he paid a further $2,500 for carpentry work completed by Mr Martinez on the vessel. According…

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 Harris v Martinez

Details

AGLC: Harris v Martinez [2023] QCATA 59
Case: [2023] QCATA 59
Decision Date: 6 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Harris against Martinez, stemming from a dispute that arose in a minor civil matter in the Local Court of New South Wales. The initial case involved a claim for damages related to a minor personal injury, where Harris alleged negligence on the part of Martinez. Following the hearing, Harris sought leave to appeal the decision, contending that the trial judge had erred in certain legal assessments and factual findings.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the dispute fell within the definition of a minor civil dispute, which is crucial for determining the eligibility for leave to appeal. This definition typically involves the consideration of the monetary value of the claim, the complexity of the issues, and the importance of the case to the parties involved. The court was required to assess whether the dispute warranted a departure from the general rule that only significant errors of law or other substantial grounds justify an appeal in minor civil matters.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the dispute did not meet the threshold for a minor civil dispute warranting appeal. The court determined that the legal errors alleged did not substantially affect the outcome of the case, and the factual findings were adequately supported by the evidence. Consequently, the court concluded that the appeal did not present substantial grounds for leave, and the appeal was refused. The decision underscored the importance of demonstrating that an appeal would significantly impact the case's outcome or address a material error of law.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed, and no leave was granted. The lower court's decision stood, and Martinez was not required to address the appeal on its merits. This outcome highlights the stringent criteria applied in minor civil disputes for granting leave to appeal, emphasising the need for compelling reasons to challenge a lower court's decision in such cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is 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.