Li Wei v Decohouse Pty Ltd

[2023] QCATA 9

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Li Wei v Decohouse Pty Ltd  [2023] QCATA 9

PARTIES:

li wei

(appellant)

v

Dechouse Pty Ltd

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL243-21

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

10 February 2023

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Richard Oliver

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to appeal is granted

2.   The decision of the tribunal dated 22 July 2021 dismissing the application is set aside.

3.   The respondent must pay to the applicant the sum of $492.45 by 30 March 2023.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – where applicant brought a claim in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the tribunal – where claim brought was for the purchase of a flooring product – whether claim was a building dispute.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act section 3, 142(3)(a)(i) and Schedule 3

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 77,

Terera & Anor v Clifford [2017] QCA 181.

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: The application was determined on the papers

1. The applicant commenced a proceeding in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the tribunal claiming $465.00 from the respondent for supply of a vinyl flooring product which did not match the sample as advertised. The product, described as mountain gum engineered hybrid click lock longboard, is supplied in packs with each vinyl board measuring 1800mm long and 228mm wide. The applicant purchased the product in April 2020 with the intention of laying the flooring himself which he began doing in August 2020. When he opened the packs he found that the boards were lighter in colour that than the sample he had received and the colour, although lighter, was also inconsistent between the boards. He says the product was unsuitable for his project.

2. He contacted the respondent to obtain a refund and return the boards but, according to the applicant, respondent refused to refund the purchase price or accept any responsibility. That is also evident from the fact that the applicant had to commence the proceeding to recover his outlay for the product. The respondent has not filed any material in the minor civil dispute proceeding responding to the claim.

3. The matter came on for hearing on 2 June 2021 before a tribunal adjudicator. The record shows the respondent did not appear. There was some concern about service of the application and whether the matter was a building dispute. As the respondent was interstate, directions were made for serving the respondent with the application in compliance with the Service and Execution of Process Act, and for the applicant to provide a letter or email from the Queensland Building and Construction Commission advising there was no process for resolving the dispute between the parties.

4. It would seem the applicant complied with the orders and filed an affidavit of service and an email from the Commission on 22 June 2021.

5. The file was then referred to an adjudicator for further consideration,…