Insightus Pty Ltd v KTR Group Pty Ltd

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Insightus Pty Ltd v KTR Group Pty Ltd [2020] QCATA 174

PARTIES:

INSIGHTUS PTY LTD

(applicant/appellant)

v

KTR GROUP PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL303-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO44-19 Coolangatta

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

7 December 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – where the respondent provided NBN services for the applicant who was also a contractor – where the respondent commenced minor debt proceedings seeking payment for work done – where the matter was set down for hearing before an Adjudicator – where the applicant failed to attend the hearing – where the Adjudicator gave judgment for the respondent – where an application for reopening by the applicant was refused – where the applicant appealed – where there was no error shown to have been made by the Adjudicator on the evidence – where leave to appeal was refused

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented by Damien Ross
Respondent:	Self-represented by Dean Richards
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

1. The applicant and respondent companies are both involved in the supply of broadband connection services.

2. NBN contracted Insightus to do work in various streets. Insightus engaged KTR in turn to do some of the work. One of the streets was Dickinson Street and KTR did the work there. KTR invoiced Insightus for the work. Insightus did not pay.

3. KTR commenced minor debt proceedings against Insightus in the Tribunal seeking to recover the invoiced amount of $15,347.29 plus the filing fee.

4. Insightus filed a response. The response claimed that no payment was due to KTR because the work was never completed and such work as was completed was not to “standard”.

5. The matter was listed for hearing on 2 October 2019 at Coolangatta. Insightus failed to attend the hearing. An Adjudicator heard from Mr Richards for KTR and gave judgment against Insightus in favour of KTR for $14,068.35 for claim, $739.26 interest on the claim and awarded the filing fee of $338.20.

6. Insightus applied for a reopening of the decision but that application was refused.

7. Insightus now seeks leave to appeal the decision made by the Adjudicator.

8. Given this is an appeal from a decision made in the Tribunal’s minor civil dispute jurisdiction, leave to appeal must first be obtained. If leave is granted then the appeal may proceed.[1] 

   [1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142(3)(a)(i).

9. Leave to appeal will usually only be granted where an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the appellant and where there is a reasonable argument that there is an error to be corrected.[2] 

   [2]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294.

The grounds of appeal

1. The first…