Martin v Southern Suburbs Football Club Inc

[2011] QCATA 176

CITATION: Martin v Southern Suburbs Football Club Inc [2011] QCATA 176

PARTIES:	Lawrence Wallace MARTIN (Applicant)
v
Southern Suburbs Football Club Inc (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBERS:         APL100-11

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE:   On the papers

HEARD AT:   Brisbane

DECISION OF: Judge Fleur Kingham, Deputy President

DELIVERED ON:   11 July 2011

DELIVERED AT:   Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:  1. The application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS: 

APPEAL – Minor Civil Dispute – Leave to Appeal – where no error asserted – whether leave should be granted.

Charitable and Non-Profit Gaming Act 1999 s73

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 142(3)(a)(i)

Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232

Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577

Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388

McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Southern Suburbs Football Club in Mackay runs a weekly game in which a prize is awarded as a ‘member’s draw’.[1] The stakes are not inconsiderable, this case involving a prize of $8,600. Mr Martin is a member of the club. He claimed, unsuccessfully as it transpired, that he was entitled to be awarded the prize, even though he had not complied with the rules of the game. These required him to present himself to the reception within sixty seconds of his number being drawn. He was seated in an area of the club in which he could not and did not hear the draw and did not present himself within time.

[1]The game is a ‘promotional game’ for the purposes of the Charitable and Non-Profit Gaming Act 1999.

2. Mr Martin seeks leave to appeal the decision made by a Magistrate sitting in his capacity as a Member of QCAT. As these proceedings involve a Minor Civil Dispute, leave to appeal is required[2]. Usually, leave will only be granted if there is a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage; [3] or, there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision[4] and a reasonable prospect that the applicant would obtain further substantive relief. [5]  Another question sometimes asked is: is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant, caused by some error? [6]

[2]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 142(3)(a)(i)

[3]Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 at 389; McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577 at 578, 580.

[4]QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.

[5]Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 at 2.

[6]QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.

3. Mr Martin’s ground of appeal is that the Magistrate failed to consider the facts of his claim, although he did not point to any particular piece of evidence or fact that demonstrated this. There is no substance in this ground of appeal. The learned Magistrate considered all relevant evidence and submissions. While Mr Martin argued the administrator had not complied with the rules on other occasions, the learned Magistrate identified correctly that the administrator was required to comply with the rules of the game.[7] It was not open to QCAT to make any other order.

[7]Charitable and Non-Profit Gaming Act 1999 s73

4. The learned Magistrate’s reasons do not reveal an error, either of law or of fact. There is no basis upon which to grant leave to appeal and Mr Martin’s application for leave to appeal is refused.