Hodder v Woodwinds Farm Pty Ltd
[2014] QCATA 196
•28 July 2014
| CITATION: | Hodder v Woodwinds Farm Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 196 |
| PARTIES: | Julie Hodder (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| Woodwinds Farm Pty Ltd (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL211 -14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member Stilgoe, OAM |
| DELIVERED ON: | 28 July 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Leave to appeal refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – MINOR DEBT – where agreement between horse facility and trainer – where terms of agreement oral – where alleged breach of agreement – where facility invoiced trainer for expenses – where tribunal determined terms of the agreement – where invoices uncontested – whether tribunal entitled to accept invoices - whether grounds for leave to appeal Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
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
Woodwinds Farm Pty Ltd owns and operates a thoroughbred breeding, spelling and pre-training facility. Ms Hodder is a trainer. In 2011, Ms Hodder and Ms Bates, the managing director of Woodwind, agreed that Ms Hodder would relocate to Woodwind as its in-house trainer. Ms Hodder had her own string of horses and they joined her at Woodwind. The parties were in dispute about the exact terms of that agreement. Ms Bates asserted that Ms Hodder had to pay the expenses relating to her horses as they were incurred; Ms Hodder asserted that those expenses were covered by her offer to remit 50% of all prize money from her horses to Woodwind.
When the relationship broke down, Woodwind rendered invoices for Ms Hodder’s horses’ expenses. The tribunal accepted Woodwind’s version of the agreement and ordered Ms Hodder pay Woodwind $12,303.92.
Ms Hodder wants to appeal that decision. She says the learned Adjudicator erred in his findings about the terms of the agreement. She says the learned Adjudicator erred in accepting the invoices from Woodwind without further inquiry.
Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.[1] 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.[2]
[1]QCAT Act s 142(3)(a)(i).
[2]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 at [3] per Keane JA.
Ms Hodder has filed fresh evidence with her application for leave to appeal. The appeals tribunal will only accept fresh evidence if it was not reasonably available at the time the proceeding was heard and determined. Ordinarily, an applicant for leave to adduce such evidence must satisfy three tests. Could Ms Hodder have obtained the evidence with reasonable diligence for use at the trial? If allowed, would the evidence probably have an important impact on the result of the case? Is the evidence credible?[3]
[3]Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404 at 408
An application for leave to appeal is not, and should not be, an attempt to shore up the deficiencies of a party’s case at the initial hearing. Ms Hodder had a number of opportunities to file material in the tribunal. On 10 December 2013, the tribunal ordered the parties to file and serve any further material on which they intended to rely. Ms Hodder has not explained why the evidence before the appeal tribunal was not available earlier. That evidence should not be admitted and the application for leave to appeal must proceed on the basis of the evidence before the learned Adjudicator.
The appeal tribunal will not usually disturb findings of fact on appeal if the evidence is capable of supporting the conclusions.[4] An appellate tribunal may interfere if the conclusion is ‘contrary to compelling inferences’ in the case.[5]
[4]Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 at 561; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 125-126.
[5]Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 at 10.
The learned Adjudicator had sworn statements from a number of witnesses. He heard evidence from witnesses who were cross-examined. The learned Adjudicator preferred the evidence given by Woodwind. It is not my task to decide where the truth lay as between the competing versions given by the parties.[6] Nothing in the transcript persuades me that the learned Adjudicator should have taken a different view of the facts.
[6]Fox v Percy supra at 129 per Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Kirby JJ.
The evidence of the invoices was uncontested. Woodwind swore to the truth of them. Although Ms Hodder asked for particulars of the invoices, she did not submit that the costs were unreasonable or not incurred. The learned Adjudicator was not required to examine each invoice forensically to verify that they were reasonable.
There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Adjudicator was in error. Leave to appeal should be refused.
0
4
0