Holloways Beach Residents Association Inc v Angel

[2011] QCATA 68

CITATION: Holloways Beach Residents Association Inc v Angel [2011] QCATA 068

PARTIES:	Holloways Beach Residents Association Inc (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Louise Angel (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:   APL204-10

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Justice Alan Wilson, President

DELIVERED ON: 30 March 2011

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: Application for leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where the respondent was the President of the Residents’ Association – where the Association was ordered to pay the respondent $405.97 for expenses incurred in performing duties of office plus $50.00 for costs – where the Association now seeks leave to appeal that decision – whether leave to appeal should be granted

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 32, 142

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard on the papers, pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is an application to the Appeal Tribunal for leave to appeal the decision of a Magistrate, sitting as an Ordinary Member of QCAT, at Cairns.  The dispute leading to the decision involved an amount of $405.97 for claim, and $50.00 for costs.

2. Ms Angel had been the President of the Residents’ Association and, in May 2010, she submitted a list of expenses she allegedly incurred in performing the duties of her office, including telephone charges associated with a special line she had installed for that purpose.

3. When the Association did not pay she brought proceedings in QCAT’s Minor Civil Disputes jurisdiction.  After a hearing presided over by the learned Magistrate at which evidence was taken, and submissions were received from Ms Angel and, also, from a representative of the Association, it was ordered that the Association pay Ms Angel $405.97 for claim, plus costs of $50.00.

1. The Association seeks leave to appeal from that decision. Leave is necessary: QCAT Act, s 142(3)(a)(i). Leave to appeal will ordinarily only be granted where there is some question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage; or, there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision and reasonable prospect that the applicant would obtain further substantive relief. Another question sometimes asked is: is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant, caused by some error?

1. According to the Association’s application, it alleges that the learned Magistrate made a decision which was contrary to the Associations’ Rules and, also, was in error in finding in Ms Angel’s favour because she ‘…did not produce any evidence to support that the claim had been ratified by a Management Committee meeting’.  It is said, further, that the Association can produce evidence of this.

2. The Associations’ Rules provide in r 32(7) that all Association expenditure must be ‘…approved or ratified at a Management Committee meeting’.  That is of course, a matter referable to, and governing, the Association’s internal operations.  It is plainly intended to ensure the Association does not pay bills that have not been seen, and accepted (and payment has been approved), by its committee members. 

3. It was not a good defence to Ms Angel’s claim, or a legal bar to the order the learned Magistrate decided to make after hearing evidence from both parties.  The internal arrangements of the Association do not dictate whether payment is due in law. 

4. The transcript of the proceedings at the original hearing also shows that no defence of this kind was raised by the Association’s representative.  It is conceivable the matter may have been relevant if, for example, it could be shown that Ms Angel’s claim came before the committee when she was a member of it, and ratification was refused; but the matter did not come up before the Tribunal in that way save that, the transcript suggests, some other accounts of Ms Angel’s had in fact been approved by the committee for payment.  

5. Otherwise the learned Magistrate was, with respect, careful to give each party a full hearing and an opportunity to present its case, and no error is apparent on the face of the transcript or the reasons the learned Magistrate gave at the conclusion of the hearing.

[10]  The application for leave to appeal must be refused.