Haskins v Jopburg Pty Ltd - [2025] QCATA 54

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRUBUNAL

CITATION:

Haskins v Jopburg Pty Ltd [2025] QCATA 54

PARTIES:

JAYCE HASKINS
AND
MATTHEW HASKINS

(applicants)

v

JOPBURG PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL098-24

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO:

MCDQ15-23

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

On the papers

HEARING DATE:

23 May 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

MEMBER:

Judicial Member Stilgoe OAM

ORDER/S:

1.     Leave to file new evidence is refused.

2.     Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where there was a minor civil dispute relating to a minor debt – where the applicant appealed on the basis of new evidence – where leave to file new evidence dismissed – whether there was an error of law or fact - where leave to appeal dismissed.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 137, s 138, s 142(3)(a)(i)

Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

APPEARANCES:

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

In April 2023, Jayce and Matthew Haskins took their car to Jopburg Pty Ltd[1] for repairs. Jopburg consented to the Haskins paying for the repairs in instalments.
[1]The Application was filed under the name ‘Jopburg Pty Ltd’. At the hearing, the Respondent informed the Adjudicator that this was incorrect and that the name was ‘Jafbury Pty Ltd’. This can be seen at T1-2 of the transcript of proceedings. For simplicity, I have continued to refer to the Respondent as ‘Jopburg Pty Ltd’.
Following a series of unfortunate events, when the car was returned to them in late August 2023, the Haskins discovered several issues which had not existed previously.
Upon discovering the issues with their car, they withheld the last instalment of $5,000.
On 1 December 2023 Jopburg filed an Application for Minor Civil Dispute seeking to recover the outstanding amount.
The Haskins claimed a set-off for the cost of repairing the car’s outstanding issues calculated on verbal quotes provided to them at the hearing.
The matter was heard on 18 March 2024. The Tribunal found that the Haskins were entitled to have the amount of the verbal quotes set off and ordered that they pay Jopburg $1,100.
The Haskins later received written quotes which show the repair is going to cost more than the verbal quotes referred to at the hearing.
The Haskins seek leave to file the written quotes. They argue that, on the basis of this new evidence, they should not be required to pay Jopburg the remaining $1,100.
Should the Haskins have leave to file new evidence?
The Appeals Tribunal will only accept fresh evidence if it was not reasonably available at the time the proceeding was heard and determined.[2] Ordinarily, an applicant for leave to adduce such evidence must satisfy each of the following tests:
(a)The evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial;
(b)The evidence, if allowed, would probably have an important impact on the result of the case; and
(c)That the evidence is credible though it need not be incontrovertible.[3]
[2]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act) ss 137 and 138.
[3]Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404, 405.
The Haskins have submitted that as they live in a remote area, a significant amount of time and money is required to acquire quotes. However, I note that the quotes provided are dated 19 March 2024, one day after the matter was heard by the Tribunal.
A period of approximately seven months passed between when the Haskins collected their car from Jopburg and the hearing. Approximately three and a half months passed between Jopburg’s filing the Application and the hearing.
I consider that, in that time, the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial.
The evidence, if allowed, will not have an important impact on the results of the case. The Haskins were successful; they are simply wanting to increase the claim due to increase in repair costs.
I accept that the evidence is credible. However, given the considerable delay and the lack of cogent reasons for obtaining this evidence earlier, leave to file new evidence is refused.
Leave to Appeal
Because this is an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.[4] Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.[5]
[4]QCAT Act, s 142(3)(a)(i).
[5]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 [3].
The Tribunal did not err in making its decision. It accepted the evidence available to it at the time and granted the Haskins a set-off.
It is not an error of law or fact that the amount awarded by the Tribunal does not cover the new quoted cost of repairs.
The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

1. Leave to file new evidence is refused.
2. Leave to appeal is refused.

Details

AGLC: Haskins v Jopburg Pty Ltd [2025] QCATA 54
Case: [2025] QCATA 54
Decision Date: 23 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Haskins v Jopburg Pty Ltd, the applicant sought to appeal against a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal had determined that the Haskins were to pay the remaining debt of $1,100 to Jopburg Pty Ltd, following a set-off. The Haskins sought to introduce new evidence in the form of quotes for the repair work that were not available at the time of the Tribunal's decision. The applicants argued that these quotes demonstrated a higher cost of repairs than had been previously accounted for, thereby justifying a reduction in the amount owed. The Tribunal denied the application to file new evidence and subsequently dismissed the appeal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal erred in refusing the applicants leave to file new evidence and whether the Tribunal's decision was subject to appeal. The applicants contended that the new evidence was not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing and that it would have a significant impact on the outcome of the case. The respondents argued that the new evidence was available with reasonable diligence and that the Tribunal's decision was correct. The court had to determine whether the Tribunal had correctly applied the criteria for admitting new evidence and whether the Tribunal's decision contained any errors warranting an appeal.

The court found that the new evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence within the timeframe provided. The court also determined that the new evidence, while credible, would not have an important impact on the result of the case. The court concluded that the Tribunal had not erred in its assessment and that the applicants had not shown a substantial injustice necessitating an appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Tribunal was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The Haskins seek leave to file the written quotes. They argue that, on the basis of this new evidence, they should not be required to pay Jopburg the remaining $1,100. Should the Haskins have leave to file new evidence? The Appeals Tribunal will only accept fresh evidence if it was not reasonably available at the time the proceeding was heard and determined.[2] Ordinarily, an applicant for leave to adduce such evidence must satisfy each of the following tests: (a)The evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial; (b)The evidence, if allowed, would probably have an important impact on the result of the case; and (c)That the evidence is credible though it need not be incontrovertible.[3][2]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act) ss 137 and 138. [3]Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404, 405. The Haskins have submitted that as they live in a remote area, a significant amount of time and money is required to acquire quotes. However, I note that the quotes provided are dated 19 March 2024, one day after the matter was heard by the Tribunal. A period of approximately seven months passed between when the Haskins collected their car from Jopburg and the hearing. Approximately three and a half months passed between Jopburg’s filing the Application and the hearing. I consider that, in that time, the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial. The evidence, if allowed, will not have an important impact on the results of the case. The Haskins were successful; they are simply wanting to increase the claim due to increase in repair costs. I accept that the evidence is credible. However, given the considerable delay and the lack of cogent reasons for obtaining this evidence earlier, leave to file new evidence is refused. Leave to Appeal Because this is an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.[4] Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.[5] [4]QCAT Act, s 142(3)(a)(i). [5]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 [3]. The Tribunal did not err in making its decision. It accepted the evidence available to it at the time and granted the Haskins a set-off. It is not an error of law or fact that the amount awarded by the Tribunal does not cover the new quoted cost of repairs. The appeal is dismissed.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.