Jennings v Design & Procure Pty Ltd (No 2)

CITATION: Jennings v Design & Procure Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] QCATA 97

PARTIES:	Nicole Ann Jennings (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Design & Procure Pty Ltd (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:            APL120-10               

MATTER TYPE:

HEARING DATE:   On the papers

HEARD AT:   Brisbane

DECISION OF: Justice Alan Wilson, President
Peta Stilgoe, Member

DELIVERED ON:   8 December 2010

DELIVERED AT:   Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:       Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS : 

MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – SERVICES RENDERED – DEBT – LEAVE TO APPEAL –where appellant engaged respondent to coordinate the fit-out and furnishings for her home – where invoices remained outstanding – where adjudicator ordered the appellant pay the outstanding balance – where the appellant alleges that decision was unfair – whether any procedural unfairness – whether leave should be granted 

PROCEDURE – where material filed on the day of the hearing – where material previously sent to the respondent – where the respondent did not ask for an adjournment for time to consider the material – whether any procedural unfairness

PREJUDICE – where respondent alleged prejudice and collusion – whether any evidence of prejudice or collusion

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 ss121(4), 122, 123(2), 142(3)(a)

Bucknell v Robins [2008] QCA 214, cited
Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1, cited

Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549, cited

Fox v Percy (2003) 197 ALR 201, cited

Tyler v Queensland Building Services Authority[2010] QDC 40, cited

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009

REASONS FOR DECISION

President:

1. In this matter the Appeal Tribunal was comprised of Ms Stilgoe, QCAT Member, and me.  I have had the advantage of reading her reasons in draft.  I agree with them and with her conclusions and the order she proposes.

Member Peta Stilgoe:

1. Ms Jennings engaged Design and Procure Pty Ltd (“Design and Procure“) to coordinate the fit-out and furnishings of a home she was building. By any standards the home, and therefore the project, was large and expensive and Ms Jennings was overseas for much of the time when Design and Procure was undertaking the work. Towards the end of the project, invoices to the total of $9,145.75 were outstanding to Design and Procure. It commenced proceedings in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the tribunal for payment of that sum.

1. On 28 May 2010 a QCAT Adjudicator found in favour of Design and Procure and ordered that Ms Jennings pay it the amount of the invoices, together with interest and filing fees.

1. Ms Jennings has appealed this decision on the following grounds:

a.    The Adjudicator did not give reasons for the decision;

b.    The Adjudicator allowed Design and Procure to proceed on evidence and documents that were not served on her prior to the hearing;

c.    The Adjudicator allowed material from third parties that was prejudicial to Ms Jennings;

d.    Ms Jennings was not given an opportunity to respond properly to the material…