Maxwell v Steele
[2014] QCATA 269
•17 September 2014
| CITATION: | Maxwell v Steele [2014] QCATA 269 |
| PARTIES: | Owen Manfred Maxwell (Appellant) |
| v | |
| Merv Steele Eva Steele (Respondents) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL172-14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Acting Senior Member Paratz |
| DELIVERED ON: | 17 September 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Leave to appeal refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – whether grounds for leave to appeal – where a party had a coughing attack during the hearing – whether the hearing was impeded or affected – where the need to press ahead with hearings was discussed – whether the appellant had been given a fair hearing – where no error of fact or law was raised – where it was held that the appellant had been given a fair hearing Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Maxwell contracted with the Steeles to repair guttering and piping at their home at Nerang in December 2012.
The Steeles say there are defects in the work and have not paid the full amount of the contract. Mr Maxwell filed an application in the Tribunal on 14 November 2013 claiming $1,180.30 as monies owing.
The Tribunal, comprised of two Justices of the Peace, heard the matter at Southport on 9 April 2014 and dismissed the Application by Mr Maxwell.
Mr Maxwell filed an Application for leave to appeal or appeal, and an Application for a stay on 6 November 2013. The Application for a stay was refused on 17 April 2014, and directions were given for the filing of submissions on the Appeal.
Submissions on the Appeal have been received from both parties. This is the decision on the Appeal.
Because this is an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.[1] 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.[2]
[1]QCAT Act s 142(3)(a)(i).
[2]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 at [3].
Mr Maxwell states his grounds of appeal in his application to be as follows:
(1)Not enough time given to me to explain my case.
(2)I may have missed part of the hearing due to my coughing attack as described before (Stay App Part C2) even though I was in court.
Part C the stay application reads as follows:
(1) A short time into me addressing the respondents Annexure A Part D, items 1 to 23 the tribunal interrupted and asked me If I could address the points of interest in relation to leaks. I agreed to this, but I feel that if allowed to complete my address to the 23 items mentioned by the Respondents, the outcome would have been different
(2) At the time of tribunal 5-10 mins into I developed a tickle in my throat which triggered a coughing attack for 5 to 10 mins. I think this may have been caused by nerves. I apologise for this and hope it did not hold up proceeding.
In his submissions filed on 14 May 2014 Mr Maxwell revisits the issues considered by the Tribunal. He further says that he did have a coughing attack which lasted 5-10 minutes which may have held up proceedings, and that he believes that if allowed to complete his evidence the outcome would have been different and in his favour.
Submissions were filed on behalf of the Steeles on 4 June 2014 submitting that Mr Maxwell does not raise that the Tribunal erred on any question of fact or law, and does not reveal any grounds for appeal.
I have read the transcript of the proceedings. There is no reference to any coughing attack on the part of Mr Maxwell, or any suggestion that the proceedings were delayed or impeded in any way.
The Minor Civil Disputes jurisdiction is a busy jurisdiction, and it is necessary for the Tribunal to press ahead with matters and seek to get to the heart of them as quickly as possible, whilst still affording all parties a fair opportunity to put their case and to be accorded natural justice.
The learned Justices of the Peace made specific enquiry as to whether the parties had presented their cases:
Hardin JP: Okay. Is there anything further from either of the parties? Mr Maxwell or Mr and Ms Steele?
Mr Maxwell: In relation to the defects or …
Hardin JP: Well, in relation to the matter now before the tribunal. Because what I intend to do now is retire for a couple of moments and I just go sit with my colleague and look over the evidence as presented and come back to you with a decision.
Mr Maxwell: I’d just like to say that in relation A, which is that silicon, the colour of the silicon, and there’s a – that’s where that leak is, in item 2 of the photos, yep. That’s the only one that needs further attention as far as the defects go.
Hardin JP: Okay. Anything Ms Steele, Mr Steele?
Ms Steele: Not that I can think of, Mr Hardin. I think we’ve covered everything that we want to discuss.
Mr Maxwell did object after the decision was delivered, as follows:
Mr Maxwell: Well, thank you for the time I had to present my evidence here, but I was cut short half way through the first page by yourself to – to jump onto it and expedite matters, which we did and we got into a big muddle.
Having read the transcript, I am satisfied that Mr Maxwell was given a fair hearing and opportunity to present his case, and that the hearing was not affected by his coughing attack.
Mr Maxwell has not raised any error of fact or law made by the Tribunal. There is no reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and that an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to Mr Maxwell.
Leave to appeal should be, and is, refused.
0