Helu v Yuan - [2021] QCAT 220

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Helu v Yuan [2021] QCAT 220

PARTIES: PAUL HELU

(applicant/appellant)

v

HONGWEN YUAN

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL098-21

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO:

BDL176-19

MATTER TYPE:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

25 June 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Brown

ORDERS:

1. The application to stay the decision of the tribunal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where the applicant is a building contractor – where the respondent homeowner engaged the builder to build a pool and spa – where the pool and spa were smaller than originally specified in the contract – where at first instance the builder was ordered to pay damages to the homeowner – where the builder’s claim for quantum meruit was denied – where the builder seeks a stay of the decision – where the applicant provided no evidence as to the disadvantage to the applicant the judgment would cause if the stay is not granted – whether the original decision should be stayed

Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld)

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613

Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337
Cook’s Construction Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Australasia Pty Ltd [2008] 2 Qd R 453
Elphick v MMI General Insurance Ltd [2002] QCA 347
Ventura v Svirac [1961] WAR 63

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

Mr Helu undertook domestic building work for Mr Yuan. The parties fell into dispute. On 3 March 2021 the tribunal decided the dispute, ordering Mr Helu to pay Mr Yuan $59,010.00 plus costs of $338.20 and dismissing Mr Helu’s counter-application (the decision).
Mr Helu has appealed the decision and has applied to stay the decision pending the outcome of the appeal.
The start of an appeal does not affect the operation of the decision under appeal or prevent the taking of action to implement the decision.[1] The tribunal may make an order staying the operation of the decision being appealed until the appeal is finally decided.[2]
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act), s 145(1).
[2]Ibid, s 145(2).
The principles in relation to the granting of a stay of a decision under appeal are well established:[3]
(a)There must be a good arguable case on appeal;
(b)The applicant will be disadvantaged if the stay is not ordered;
(c)The balance of convenience favours the granting of the stay – that is, the disadvantage to the applicant if the stay is not granted outweighs the disadvantage to the respondent if the stay is granted.
[3]Elphick v MMI General Insurance Ltd [2002] QCA 347.
All of these considerations must be satisfied in order…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Helu v Yuan and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] QCAT 220
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Helu v Yuan, the applicant, Mr Helu, sought a stay of a decision made by a tribunal against the respondent, Mr Yuan. The application was heard and ultimately dismissed by a court, which found that Mr Helu had not satisfied the necessary criteria for the stay to be granted. Mr Helu's primary contention was that the tribunal's decision should be stayed pending the outcome of his appeal, but the court was unpersuaded by his arguments.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the three criteria traditionally considered in determining whether a stay should be granted: whether Mr Helu had an arguable case on appeal, whether there were significant detriments to him if the stay was not granted, and whether the balance of convenience favoured the granting of the stay. The court found that while Mr Helu had demonstrated an arguable case on appeal, he had not adequately addressed the other two criteria. Specifically, Mr Helu failed to present any meaningful submissions or evidence regarding the potential disadvantages he would face if the stay was not granted. Without such evidence, the court could not conclude that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The court emphasised that Mr Helu needed to show that the balance of convenience weighed in favour of a stay, which involves demonstrating significant detriment if the stay was not granted. The court noted that there was no evidence suggesting that the decision amount would be dissipated or that Mr Helu would face bankruptcy if the stay was not granted. Given the lack of submissions from Mr Helu on these points, the court concluded that the balance of convenience did not favour the granting of the stay. As Mr Helu had not satisfied all three criteria necessary for the stay, the application was refused.

The court's final order was that the application to stay the tribunal's decision was dismissed, effectively leaving the tribunal's decision in place pending the outcome of Mr Helu's appeal.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In the absence of any meaningful submissions from Mr Helu, I am not satisfied that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the stay. Conclusion As I earlier observed, in order to be successful in the stay application Mr Helu is required to establish all three requirements relevant in determining such applications. Whilst I am satisfied that Mr Helu has an arguable case on appeal, he has failed to address, and therefore satisfy, the other requirements. The application to stay the decision of the tribunal is refused.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Accordingly, Mr Helu has not demonstrated that this consideration weighs in favour of the granting of the stay. Balance of convenience considerations As I have observed, Mr Helu has offered no evidence nor made any submissions addressing the disadvantage he will suffer if the stay is not granted. The relative disadvantage to Mr Helu if the stay is not granted is relevant to balance of convenience considerations. There is nothing before me to suggest, for example, that there is a real risk that the decision amount will be dissipated or removed from the state by Mr Yuan pending the hearing of the appeal or that compliance with the orders under appeal would result in Mr Helu’s bankruptcy. Even if the latter were a real possibility, the fact that compliance with the judgment would result in the applicant becoming bankrupt will not necessarily weigh in favour of granting a stay.[11][11]Phoenix Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v McCracken [2011] QCA 259. In the absence of any meaningful submissions from Mr Helu, I am not satisfied that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the stay. Conclusion As I earlier observed, in order to be successful in the stay application Mr Helu is required to establish all three requirements relevant in determining such applications. Whilst I am satisfied that Mr Helu has an arguable case on appeal, he has failed to address, and therefore satisfy, the other requirements. The application to stay the decision of the tribunal is refused.

CITATION:	Helu v Yuan [2021] QCAT 220
PARTIES:	PAUL HELU
(applicant/appellant)
v
HONGWEN YUAN
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO:	APL098-21
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO:	BDL176-19
MATTER TYPE:	Appeal
DELIVERED ON:	25 June 2021
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Senior Member Brown
ORDERS:	1. The application to stay the decision of the tribunal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where the applicant is a building contractor – where the respondent homeowner engaged the builder to build a pool and spa – where the pool and spa were smaller than originally specified in the contract – where at first instance the builder was ordered to pay damages to the homeowner – where the builder’s claim for quantum meruit was denied – where the builder seeks a stay of the decision – where the applicant provided no evidence as to the disadvantage to the applicant the judgment would cause if the stay is not granted – whether the original decision should be stayed Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld) Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337 Cook’s Construction Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Australasia Pty Ltd [2008] 2 Qd R 453 Elphick v MMI General Insurance Ltd [2002] QCA 347 Ventura v Svirac [1961] WAR 63
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)