Laker Paint Company Pty Ltd v Bray

CITATION:	Laker Paint Company Pty Ltd v Bray [2013]
QCATA 90
PARTIES:	Laker Paint Company Pty Ltd
(Applicant/Appellant)
V
Mr Warren Bray
(Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	APL094 -12
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Peta Stilgoe, Senior Member
DELIVERED ON:	18 March 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	1. Leave to appeal refused
CATCHWORDS:	MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – whether grounds
for leave to appeal
Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty
Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577
Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd
[1984] 1 Qd R 404

[1]    Laker Paint Company Pty Ltd supplied Mr Bray with thermal insulation paint. He applied it to his roof but, in a matter of months, it started to flake. He asked Laker for compensation. Laker offered to supply more paint, although not enough to repaint the whole roof. Mr Bray refused the offer and filed a claim for the cost of repainting the roof.

[2]     The tribunal listed the dispute for mediation. Laker did not appear so an adjudicator heard the matter and ordered that Laker pay Mr Bray the full amount of his claim.

[3]     Laker applied to reopen the matter. The tribunal dismissed the application.

Laker wants to appeal the tribunal‟s decision. It says that it was not properly served. It also disputes the learned Adjudicator‟s findings of fact.

[4]    It is not clear whether Lake is appealing the decision to reopen or the original decision. If it is appealing the decision to reopen, then the appeals tribunal has no jurisdiction. Section 139(5) of the Queensland Civil and

Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 states that the tribunal‟s decision on a

reopening application is final and cannot be the subject of appeal.

[5]     If Laker is appealing the original decision then, because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary. The question whether or not leave to appeal should be granted is usually addressed according to established principles. Is there a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision?[1] Is there a reasonable prospect that the applicant will obtain substantive relief?[2] Is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice caused by some error?[3] Is there a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the appeals tribunal, would be to the public advantage?[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[6]    Laker has filed new evidence in support of its application for leave to appeal. The appeals tribunal will only accept fresh evidence if it was not reasonably available at the time the proceeding was heard and determined[5]. Ordinarily, an applicant for leave to adduce such evidence…