King Developments Pty Ltd v Mayne - [2015] QCAT 173

CITATION:

King Developments Pty Ltd v Mayne [2015] QCAT 173

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

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCL093-13

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

11 May 2015

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr Cullen, Member

DELIVERED ON:

11 May 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The Tribunal orders that King Developments endeavour to sell the vehicle to either Sandgate Auto Wreckers or Salvage Tender, and submit evidence of the price obtained to the Tribunal no later than 29 May 2015.

2. The decision in relation to the quantum of the claim to be paid from the fund will then be made on the papers and without an oral hearing.

3. The Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney General is Ordered to pay King Developments Pty Ltd the sum ordered by the Tribunal, following the decision on the papers in relation to quantum.

4. The Respondent, Alan John Colburn Mayne, is liable for the whole of King Developments Pty Ltd’s financial loss.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – PAMDA – CLAIM AGAINST THE FUND – MOTOR DEALERS – FALSE OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATION – where applicants purchased repairable write off – where vehicle was not able to be registered – where applicants lost money – whether car dealer knew car was not registrable – whether claim was false or misleading – whether Tribunal erred in finding no false or misleading representation – whether claim can be made against the fund

Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld), s 294B, s 408, s 470, s 488, s 574

Myers v DPP [1965] AC 1001

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

Greg King and Garry King

RESPONDENT:

Alan Mayne

REASONS FOR DECISION
The Ute that could never be registered

The respondent, Alan John Colburn Mayne, was once in the business of selling repairable write-off vehicles. Brothers Gary and Greg King responded to an advertisement placed in the Trading Post for a 2005 Ford Falcon Utility Vehicle. The Kings intended to use the Ute in their business, King Developments Pty Ltd.
Mr Mayne and the Kings agree that King Developments purchased the Ute following a period of negotiations lasting several weeks in October and November 2011. The Ute was represented by Mr Mayne to be a ‘repairable write-off’ that would be capable of registration. The parties also agree that the price of the vehicle was $9,000.00, and that there was no written acknowledgment signed by either of the Kings on behalf of King Developments identifying that the Ute was a repairable write-off, as is required by s 294B of the Property Agents Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘PAMD Act’).
Ultimately, the Kings were never able to get the Ute registered. Having invested significant funds into a vehicle that has only ever been capable of serving as ornamental lawn décor, they are understandably upset. It is the Kings’ position that Mr Mayne was aware, prior to selling the vehicle to them, that it was never capable of being registered.

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] QCAT 173
Case: [2015] QCAT 173
Decision Date: 11 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

King Developments Pty Ltd, a car dealer, sought compensation from the Motor Dealers Unregistered Vehicles Compensation Fund, alleging that a vehicle they purchased was falsely represented as being registrable. The vehicle in question was a repairable write-off, which could not be registered due to its history. This resulted in a financial loss for King Developments. The dispute was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), and subsequently, King Developments appealed to the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue was whether the dealer, Alan John Colburn Mayne, was aware that the vehicle was not registrable when he sold it to King Developments, and if his representations constituted a false or misleading statement. The Court was also required to determine if the Tribunal had erred in concluding that no such false or misleading representation was made and if a claim could be brought against the fund under these circumstances.

The Court of Appeal found that the Tribunal had indeed erred in its decision. The dealer's knowledge of the vehicle's status and his statements about its condition led to the conclusion that a false or misleading representation had been made. The Court emphasised that the dealer's failure to disclose the vehicle's unregistrable status was a significant factor. Furthermore, the Court held that a claim could be made against the fund under these circumstances, reversing the Tribunal's decision on this point.

The Court ordered that King Developments must endeavour to sell the vehicle to either Sandgate Auto Wreckers or Salvage Tender, with evidence of the sale price to be submitted to the Tribunal by a specified date. The quantum of the claim to be paid from the fund was to be determined on the papers without an oral hearing. Additionally, the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney General, was ordered to pay King Developments Pty Ltd the sum decided by the Tribunal following the determination of the quantum. The dealer, Alan John Colburn Mayne, was held liable for the entirety of King Developments Pty Ltd’s financial loss.

Orders

Orders of the court

2. The decision in relation to the quantum of the claim to be paid from the fund will then be made on the papers and without an oral hearing.

4. The Respondent, Alan John Colburn Mayne, is liable for the whole of King Developments Pty Ltd’s financial loss.

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.