Mann v Foote - [2024] QCATA 28

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Mann v Foote [2024] QCATA 28

PARTIES:

RICHARD MANN

(applicant)

v

LALANDE FOOTE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL323-22

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCD496-22

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

6 March 2024

HEARING DATE:

4 March 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lumb

ORDERS:

1. Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – leave to appeal – minor civil dispute – where motor vehicle broke down shortly after service – where vehicle owner claimed cost of repair – where vehicle owner alleged that damage to vehicle caused by lack of oil in engine following service – where mechanic found liable – whether error of fact – whether leave to appeal should be granted

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142

Alderton & Anor v Wide Bay Constructions Pty Ltd [2017] QCATA 147
Berry v Treasure & Anor [2021] QCATA 61
Kerr v Paku and Anor [2011] QCATA 157
Mannix v Chris Neale Constructions Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 222
Saxer v Hume [2022] QCATA 25

REPRESENTATION & APPEARANCES:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

By an Application for leave to appeal or appeal filed on 2 November 2022 (the Appeal Application), the Applicant (Mr Mann) seeks leave to appeal, and to appeal, a decision made by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 14 October 2022 (the Decision).
The Decision was made in a proceeding commenced by the Respondent to the Appeal Application (Ms Foote) by an Application for minor civil dispute – consumer/trader dispute; property damage caused by a motor vehicle, filed on 16 May 2022 (the MCD Application).
Ms Foote claimed the cost of repairing engine damage that had been sustained to a 2018 Toyota Hilux motor vehicle (the vehicle) as a result of a lack of oil in the engine in circumstances where the vehicle had been serviced by Mr Mann earlier in the week. The amount of the claim was $8,422.50 (including a filing fee of $127.50). Mr Mann trades as ‘Richies Mechanical’.
The hearing of the MCD Application proceeded on 14 October 2022. By the Decision, the Tribunal (constituted by an Adjudicator) ordered that Mr Mann pay Ms Foote the sum of $8,422.50 within 28 days. In summary, the Adjudicator found that the engine damage was caused because there was not enough oil to lubricate the engine following the service by Mr Mann.

The Grounds of Appeal

The Grounds of Appeal set out in the Appeal Application are stated as follows:
I am appealing this decision as I feel the adjudicator was not aware of most of the facts/evidence submitted by myself prior to hearing. A key piece of evidence was given to the adjudicator in and black and white (dipstick screenshot) and needed to be seen in colour. He never confirmed if the oil was visible on the photo.
RACQ advised [Ms Foote] to continue driving the vehicle after she was aware there was a problem.
The adjudicators knowledge of engines…

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 Mann v Foote

Details

AGLC: Mann v Foote [2024] QCATA 28
Case: [2024] QCATA 28
Decision Date: 6 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mann v Foote, the plaintiff sought compensation for the cost of repairs to a motor vehicle which had broken down shortly after undergoing a service by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the damage to the vehicle was caused by a lack of oil in the engine, which was due to the defendant's failure to properly refill the oil during the service. The primary judge found the defendant liable for the damages and awarded the plaintiff compensation. The defendant now seeks leave to appeal against the primary judge’s decision, arguing that the decision contained errors of fact.

The key legal issues in this case revolve around the standard of review applicable to findings of fact made by the primary judge, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the primary judge’s findings, and whether the primary judge’s decision contains an error of fact warranting an appeal. The court must determine whether the primary judge's findings are open to challenge and whether there is a reasonable possibility that the appeal would succeed if leave were granted.

The court considered the principles governing leave to appeal in minor civil disputes, noting that such disputes typically involve a lower threshold for granting leave. The court examined the primary judge’s reasoning and the evidence presented. The court found that the primary judge had carefully considered the evidence and that the findings of fact were not clearly erroneous. The court concluded that the primary judge’s decision was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence, and that there was no reasonable possibility that the appeal would succeed. Accordingly, the court refused leave to appeal.

As a result of the court's decision, the defendant's application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The primary judge's decision stands, and the defendant remains liable for the cost of repairs to the plaintiff's vehicle.

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.

CITATION:	Mann v Foote [2024] QCATA 28
PARTIES:	RICHARD MANN (applicant)
v
LALANDE FOOTE (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL323-22
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	MCD496-22
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	6 March 2024
HEARING DATE:	4 March 2024
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Lumb
ORDERS:	1. Leave to appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – leave to appeal – minor civil dispute – where motor vehicle broke down shortly after service – where vehicle owner claimed cost of repair – where vehicle owner alleged that damage to vehicle caused by lack of oil in engine following service – where mechanic found liable – whether error of fact – whether leave to appeal should be granted Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142 Alderton & Anor v Wide Bay Constructions Pty Ltd [2017] QCATA 147 Berry v Treasure & Anor [2021] QCATA 61 Kerr v Paku and Anor [2011] QCATA 157 Mannix v Chris Neale Constructions Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 222 Saxer v Hume [2022] QCATA 25
REPRESENTATION & APPEARANCES:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented