Kaspar v Craig - [2021] QCATA 131

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Kaspar v Craig [2021] QCATA 131

PARTIES: MICHAEL KASPAR
EXPERIENCE HEALING PTY LTD

(\respondents/appellants)

v

JAMES CRAIG

(applicant/respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL330-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

Southport MCDO00467–20

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

2 September 2021

HEARING DATE:

22 June 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Bertelsen

ORDERS:

1. The application to submit and rely on fresh evidence on appeal is refused.

2. Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF TRIBUNAL BELOW – control over proceedings where allegation of denial of natural justice – where tribunal in its minor civil dispute jurisdiction is required to deal with matters quickly – where respondent below was given opportunity to present case and rebut applicants case – where applicant had obligation to prove his case – where respondent was given natural justice within the context of tribunals minor civil dispute jurisdiction

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – ADMISSION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE – IN GENERAL – where respondent applied for leave to appeal – where respondent sought to introduce evidence not adduced at first instance – whether evidence should be admitted – whether evidence capable of supporting findings – where new evidence did not have sufficient weight to overturn original findings – where findings still open on evidence – whether leave to appeal should be granted

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 28, s 142, s 143

Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] Qd R 404, 408.
Creek v Raine & Horne Mossman [2011] QCATA 226, [13], citing with approval Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175, 217.
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118, 125-126.

Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1, 10.

Pickering v McArthur (2005) QCA 294.

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

This is an appeal from a decision made by an adjudicator in a minor civil dispute.
On 16 July 2020 James Craig filed a minor civil dispute application – minor debt at Southport.
He sought $5700.00 for chiropractic services provided by him on a 50% basis of consultations paid by patients for the provision of services at a chiropractic practice conducted by Michael Kaspar at Mackay.
On 2 September 2020 Mr Kaspar filed a response claiming failure to honour contractual arrangements and Mr Craig being incorrectly licenced to use his laser machine for chiropractic purposes in Queensland.
On 9 October 2020 the Tribunal ordered
1. The applicant may attend the hearing by telephone
2. Experience Healing Pty Ltd ABN 70 601 529 122 is joined as a Respondent.
3. The Respondents pay to the Applicant $5883.75
4. QCAT registry email these orders to the parties to both James Craig and Experience Healing at their…

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.

Continue reading Kaspar v Craig

Details

AGLC: Kaspar v Craig [2021] QCATA 131
Case: [2021] QCATA 131
Decision Date: 2 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Kaspar v Craig concerned a dispute between the parties in the context of a minor civil dispute within the tribunal's jurisdiction. The appellant, Kaspar, sought to appeal against the tribunal's decision, arguing that there had been a denial of natural justice and that the tribunal had erred in its handling of the case. The respondent, Craig, defended the tribunal's decision, asserting that the appellant had been given ample opportunity to present and rebut the case, and that the tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction.

The central legal issues for the court were whether the tribunal had erred in its application of natural justice and whether the tribunal's decision was open to being overturned on the basis of the new evidence presented on appeal. The court had to consider whether the tribunal had acted within its discretion and whether the appellant had been given a fair opportunity to present his case. Additionally, the court examined whether the new evidence presented on appeal was capable of supporting the appellant's case and whether it had sufficient weight to overturn the original findings.

In assessing the appeal, the court determined that the tribunal had not erred in its handling of the case, and that the appellant had indeed been given a fair opportunity to present and rebut the case. The court found that the evidence presented on appeal did not have sufficient weight to overturn the original findings, and that the findings were still open on the evidence. Consequently, the court refused the appellant's application to submit and rely on fresh evidence on appeal and also refused leave to appeal. The court emphasised the importance of tribunals acting within their discretion and the principle that new evidence presented on appeal must have significant weight to warrant a new trial.

The final orders of the court were that the application to submit and rely on fresh evidence on appeal was refused and that leave to appeal was also refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to submit and rely on fresh evidence on appeal is refused.

2. Leave to appeal is refused.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Kaspar v Craig [2021] QCATA 131
PARTIES:	MICHAEL KASPAR EXPERIENCE HEALING PTY LTD
(\respondents/appellants)
v
JAMES CRAIG
(applicant/respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL330-20
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	Southport MCDO00467–20
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	2 September 2021
HEARING DATE:	22 June 2021
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Bertelsen
ORDERS:	1. The application to submit and rely on fresh evidence on appeal is refused. 2. Leave to appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF TRIBUNAL BELOW – control over proceedings where allegation of denial of natural justice – where tribunal in its minor civil dispute jurisdiction is required to deal with matters quickly – where respondent below was given opportunity to present case and rebut applicants case – where applicant had obligation to prove his case – where respondent was given natural justice within the context of tribunals minor civil dispute jurisdiction APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – ADMISSION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE – IN GENERAL – where respondent applied for leave to appeal – where respondent sought to introduce evidence not adduced at first instance – whether evidence should be admitted – whether evidence capable of supporting findings – where new evidence did not have sufficient weight to overturn original findings – where findings still open on evidence – whether leave to appeal should be granted Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 28, s 142, s 143 Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] Qd R 404, 408. Creek v Raine & Horne Mossman [2011] QCATA 226, [13], citing with approval Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175, 217. Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118, 125-126. Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1, 10. Pickering v McArthur (2005) QCA 294.
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)