Ludwig v Blenkiron - [2023] QCATA 2

., ...

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION: PARTIES:

APPLICATION NO:
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO:
MATTER TYPE: DELIVERED ON: HEARING DATE: HEARD AT: DECISION OF: ORDER: CATCHWORDS:

Ludwig v Blenkiron [2023] QCATA 2
RICHARD SEBASTIAN LUDWIG
(appellant)
V
KATRINA RUTH BLENKIRON
(respondent) APL195-21 MCD275 of 2020

Appeals
11 January 2023 On the papers Brisbane
Member PG Stilgoe OAM

1. Leave to appeal is refused.

APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - leave to appeal - minor civil dispute - natural justice - procedural fairness - whether the tribunal erred in considering evidence - where the applicant provided goods and services to the respondent whilst in a relationship - whether the parties agreed on an amount for the goods or services
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 ss 32, 142(3)(a)(i)
Council of the City of Wollongong v Cowan (1955) 93 CLR435
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 51
Pickering v McArthur [2006] QCA 294

APPEARANCES & This matter was heard and determined on the papers REPRESENTATION: pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative
Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

2

REASONS FOR DECISION
[1]In 2015, Katrina Blenkiron moved into a property owned by Richard Ludwig, and shared the house with Mr Ludwig and others until 2019. Mr Ludwig, a 'jack of all trades, master of none',¹ helped resolve Ms Blenkiron's ongoing business dispute at the time. They also had a romantic relationship until its demise in 2019.
[2]Mr Ludwig wanted Ms Blenkiron to pay him for consultancy fees and the market value of furniture she took when she left. His claim was dismissed on the basis that, fundamentally, Ms Blenkiron never agreed to pay for Mr Ludwig's services or the furniture.² There was no evidence of the parties ever agreeing on the amount for the goods or services.³
[3]Mr Ludwig now wishes to appeal the tribunal's decision and have the matter reheard on that basis that the tribunal was not procedurally fair to him. He takes issue with the tribunal's; treatment of the statutory declaration of Detective Hardham; unfairness towards his witness; disregard of his invoice; and disregard of Ms Blenkiron's affidavit.
[4]Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.⁴ Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.⁵
Did the tribunal err in considering Detective Hardham's statutory declaration?
[5]The tribunal must facilitate procedural fairness by considering material relevant to resolving the dispute's fundamental issues.⁶
[6]Fundamentally, Mr Ludwig was first tasked with establishing that Ms Blenkiron agreed to pay him for his services. He asked the tribunal to discard the statutory declaration of Detective Hardham which had been filed by Ms Blenkiron. No weight was given to the statutory declaration because it was irrelevant, and the detective was unavailable…

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 Ludwig v Blenkiron

Details

AGLC: Ludwig v Blenkiron [2023] QCATA 2
Case: [2023] QCATA 2
Decision Date: 11 January 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Ludwig v Blenkiron was brought by the appellant, Ludwig, against the respondent, Blenkiron. Ludwig sought leave to appeal a decision of the tribunal, which dismissed Ludwig's claim for payment of goods and services provided to Blenkiron while they were in a relationship. The tribunal had found that Ludwig had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim and that the parties had not agreed on an amount for the goods or services provided.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the tribunal had erred in considering evidence that was not provided by Ludwig and whether the tribunal had failed to observe procedural fairness in its handling of the case. Ludwig argued that the tribunal had erred by considering evidence that was not provided by Ludwig and that this had resulted in an unfair outcome. Ludwig also argued that the tribunal had failed to observe procedural fairness by not allowing Ludwig to respond to the evidence presented by Blenkiron.

The court held that the tribunal had not erred in considering the evidence that was presented to it. The court found that the evidence was relevant to the issues in the case and that Ludwig had been given an opportunity to respond to it. The court also found that the tribunal had observed procedural fairness in its handling of the case by allowing Ludwig to present evidence and arguments in support of their claim. The court held that Ludwig had not demonstrated that the tribunal's decision was Wednesbury unreasonable or that it had failed to observe procedural fairness. Accordingly, the court refused Ludwig's application for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

ORDER

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.