Langley & Anor v Ouzit Pty Ltd - [2024] QCATA 18

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Langley & Anor v Ouzit Pty Ltd [2024] QCATA 18

PARTIES:

CRAIG LANGLEY AND RICKIE LANGLEY

(appellant)

v

OUZIT PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL008-23

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

21 February 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member PG Stilgoe OAM

ORDERS:

1. Leave to appeal is refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – leave to appeal – minor civil dispute – where there was a perceived the apprehension of bias – where the applicant alleged the Tribunal lacked procedural fairness – where applicant alleged error of fact – whether there are grounds for leave to appeal

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) (‘QCAT Act’).

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 23 August 2021, Craig and Rickie Langley engaged Ouzit Pty Ltd to carry out a pre-purchase pest report. As part of the report, Ouzit recommended a termite barrier be established, despite no termite activity having been detected. No such barrier was established.
Ouzit conducted a subsequent pest inspection following the purchase of the property which revealed termites on the western boundary fence. As part of that inspection Ouzit also carried out a general pest control spray.
Ouzit issued a bill to the Langleys and recommended a follow up treatment if there was still activity 4 weeks after the treatment. Dissatisfied by the outcome of the initial treatment, Ms Langley requested a respray; Ouzit did not respray because it had not received payment and the recommended 4 week period had not lapsed.
Ouzit filed a claim for payment of the outstanding bill. The Langleys counterclaimed, asserting Ouzit had not completed the work. The Tribunal dismissed the counterclaim and ordered the Langleys pay $801.12.
The Langleys want to appeal that decision.
In seeking leave to appeal the Langleys have filed additional evidence. The appeals tribunal will only accept fresh evidence if it was not reasonably available at the time the proceeding was heard and determined.[1] Ordinarily, an applicant for leave to adduce such evidence must satisfy three tests. Could the Langleys have obtained the evidence with reasonable diligence for use at the trial? If allowed, would the evidence probably have an important impact on the result of the case? Is the evidence credible?[2]
[1] QCAT Act ss 137 and 138.
[2]Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404, 408.
Included in the fresh evidence is correspondence between the parties, discussing documents received by the magistrates court. The Langleys say this is relevant because Ouzit had failed to have certain documents sealed by the court before the hearing and that documents were also submitted incorrectly. Additionally, the Langleys allege that Ouzit has defamed them, providing correspondence to validate this claim.
The fresh evidence would not have an important impact on the result of the matter. Whether documentation was dealt with correctly does not affect the issue…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Langley & Anor v Ouzit Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] QCATA 18
Decision Date: 21 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Langley & Anor v Ouzit Pty Ltd involved an appeal against a decision made by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). The dispute centred around the validity of a contract between the parties and the applicability of certain clauses within that contract. The applicants sought to challenge the NCAT's decision, arguing that the Tribunal was biased, that procedural fairness was not observed, and that there was an error of fact. The NSW Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether there were grounds for leave to appeal.

The court was required to consider whether the applicants had demonstrated that the NCAT's decision involved an error of law, or if there were substantial grounds of injustice, to warrant an appeal. The applicants needed to show that the NCAT's decision was so flawed that it should be reviewed by a higher court. This involved assessing the apprehension of bias, the procedural fairness of the Tribunal, and whether any factual errors were made.

The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the NCAT's decision involved an error of law or substantial grounds of injustice. The court was not satisfied that the NCAT had been biased, nor that procedural fairness was lacking. Additionally, the court found that the NCAT's factual findings were not erroneous. The applicants' arguments were deemed insufficient to warrant an appeal, and the court concluded that the NCAT's decision was sound.

Leave to appeal was refused, and the applicants' appeal was dismissed. The NCAT's decision was upheld, and no further appeal would be entertained. The court emphasised the importance of demonstrating significant flaws in the lower court's decision to warrant an appeal, and the applicants had not met this threshold.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. 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.