Macaskill v Lomas

[2024] QCATA 82

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Macaskill v Lomas [2024] QCATA 82

PARTIES:

DANE MACASKILL

(applicant/appellant)

v

HELEN LOMAS

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL027-22

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO 6-21

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

30 July 2024

HEARING DATE:

26 September 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Richard Oliver

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to appeal is granted.

2.   The appeal is allowed.

3.   The decision of the Tribunal dated 24 August 2021 is set aside.

4.   The application filed on 21 March 2021 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – JURISDICTION – where parties entered into a contract for the sale of a motor vehicle – where respondent did not inspect the vehicle – where vehicle delivered to the respondent without a safety certificate – where safety certificate provided after the contract date and the delivery of the vehicle – where prohibition of disposing of a vehicle without a safety certificate – whether requirement to provide safety certificate before sale – whether contract for purchase of vehicle an illegal contract.

JURISDICTION – where claim brought for recovery of purchase price and expenses incurred – where jurisdiction under the definition of minor civil dispute is confined to a debt or liquidated demand – whether claim made is for unliquidated damages or debt or liquidated demand.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, s 142(3)(a)(i); schedule 3

Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 2010 s 23 and s 24

Hall v Freeman [2018] QCATA 159

Hill v Berghofer [2011] QCATA 34
Miler v Miller (2011) 242 CLR 446
Nichols v Earth Spirit Home Pty Ltd [2015] QCA 219
Principles of Contract Law: Robertson & Paterson 6^th ed. [42.10]
Spain v The Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd (1923) 32 CLR 138.
Terera & Anor v Clifford [2017] QCA 181

Walsh Accountants Pty Ltd v Tonge [2023] QCAT 467

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 28 February 2018 the respondent entered into a partly oral and partly written contract to purchase a Nissan Civilian Bus (“the vehicle”) from the applicant for $24,500.00. The passenger section of the vehicle was fitted out as a self-contained living space with the usual amenities, kitchen, living space, bathroom/toilet and a sleeping area. It was advertised on Gumtree and negotiation between the parties was mainly by text message (the writing).

2. The applicant represented the vehicle as being in very good condition and roadworthy. On the basis of the representations, it was ideally suited to the respondent’s needs as a mature single lady to live and travel in, on a generally full time basis. The applicant did not inspect the vehicle before delivery but relied on photos posted on Gumtree.

3. However, after taking delivery of the vehicle, it soon became apparent it had many defects. These included, in summary:

   (a)unserviceable tyres;

   (b)mould within the living space;

   (c)cabinetry was buckled and worn, and misaligned;

   (d)12 volt power system…