King Developments Pty Ltd v Mayne - [2015] QCATA 29

CITATION:

King Developments Pty Ltd v Mayne [2015] QCATA 29

PARTIES:	King Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Alan John Colburn Mayne (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL533-14

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Stilgoe OAM

DELIVERED ON:

24 February 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Appeal allowed.

2. King Developments Pty Ltd shall file and serve any additional material on which it wishes to rely, including but not limited to the material filed in APL524 -14 and any material evidencing quantum, by 4:00pm on 24 March 2015.

3. Mr Mayne may file and serve any material in reply by 4:00pm on 21 April 2015.

4. The application OCL093-13 will be listed for hearing for one day on a date to be advised.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL –PROPERTY AGENTS AND MOTOR DEALERS – MOTOR DEALER – CLAIM ON THE FUND – where purchase of registrable write off – where vehicle not registered – where tribunal refused claim on the fund - whether grounds for leave to appeal

APPEAL – PROCEDURE – where no request for oral hearing – where issues dispute as to facts - of credit – whether tribunal should have ordered oral hearing – whether procedural fairness – whether grounds for leave to appeal

APPEAL – PROCEDURE – where fresh evidence filed on earlier appeal – where appeal allowed because party denied opportunity to file evidence in original hearing – where fresh evidence not filed in re-hearing – whether procedural fairness - whether grounds for leave to appeal

Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294
Chandra v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCA 335
Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404
Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1

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

In October 2011, Mr Mayne advertised a Ford Utility for sale. King Developments Pty Ltd was interested in buying it. It turned out that the ute was a registrable write off, which King knew by way of a V check on 18 November 2011. King bought the ute anyway. By July 2012, after extensive work on the ute at King’s expense, the ute was still not registered. King filed a claim for compensation with the Office of Fair Trading.
The Office of Fair Trading referred the claim to the tribunal. The tribunal dismissed the claim. King appealed that decision. The appeal was allowed and the claim returned to the decision-maker. The tribunal, again, dismissed the claim. King has filed an application for leave to appeal the second decision.
King has two grounds of appeal. The first is that the tribunal should have held an oral hearing, rather than determined the claim on the papers. This is an appeal on…

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 King Developments Pty Ltd v Mayne

Details

AGLC: King Developments Pty Ltd v Mayne [2015] QCATA 29
Case: [2015] QCATA 29
Decision Date: 24 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of King Developments Pty Ltd v Mayne, the dispute centred around a claim made by King Developments, a motor dealer, against a fund for the purchase of a vehicle that had been deemed a registrable write-off. The tribunal had rejected the claim, prompting King Developments to appeal the decision. The court was required to determine if there were grounds for granting leave to appeal based on several issues, including the circumstances surrounding the purchase of the vehicle, the procedural fairness of the tribunal's handling of the case, and the tribunal's refusal to order an oral hearing.

The court examined whether the tribunal should have ordered an oral hearing, given the issues of fact and credit involved in the case. Additionally, it considered whether the tribunal's refusal to allow fresh evidence that had been filed during an earlier appeal was fair and procedurally sound. The court also needed to decide if the failure to file the fresh evidence in the re-hearing affected the procedural fairness and if this warranted grounds for leave to appeal.

The court found that the tribunal's refusal to order an oral hearing, especially in light of the issues of fact and credit, did not meet the standard of procedural fairness. Furthermore, the tribunal's handling of the fresh evidence, which was not filed in the re-hearing, also fell short of procedural fairness. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the court mandated that King Developments submit any additional material it wished to rely on by a specified deadline. The case was then scheduled for a hearing on a date to be determined.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

3. Mr Mayne may file and serve any material in reply by 4:00pm on 21 April 2015.

4. The application OCL093-13 will be listed for hearing for one day on a date to be advised.

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.