| CITATION: | Mayne v King Developments Pty Ltd [2015] QCATA 160 |
| PARTIES: | Alan John Colburn Mayne (Appellant) |
| v | |
| King Developments Pty Ltd (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL255-15 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | 3 November 2015 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member Stilgoe OAM Member Hughes |
| DELIVERED ON: | 10 November 2015 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Leave to appeal granted 2. Appeal dismissed. | ||
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – CLAIM FUND – MOTOR DEALER - where questions of mixed law and fact – whether Tribunal applied correct legislation – where legislation in force at time of sale – where claim for false representations and not defect and therefore statutory warranty provision does not apply - whether Tribunal erred in hearing matter de novo – where Appeal Tribunal ordered de novo hearing as it was entitled - whether appellant sufficiently informed of de novo hearing – where Appeal Tribunal’s reasons clearly state de novo hearing and were sent to appellant before hearing who was given opportunity to file material – where appellant failed to file any material and thereby failed to act in own interests - where findings of fact open on evidence - where no grounds to grant leave to appeal as no error by Member causing substantial injustice or question of public importance Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000, ss 244, 470, 488, 574 Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v. Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 | ||
APPEARANCES:
APPELLANT: Mr Alan John Coburn Mayne in person
RESPONDENT: Mr Greg King and Mr Garry King appeared for King Developments Pty Ltd
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member Stilgoe OAM
In this appeal, the appeal Tribunal comprised Member Hughes and me. I have had the benefit of reading Member Hughes’ reasons in draft and I agree with his reasons, conclusions and the order he proposes.
Member Hughes
What is this appeal about?
Alan Mayne sold a repairable write-off vehicle to King Developments Pty Ltd for $9,000.00. King was never able to register the vehicle and the Tribunal ultimately awarded him $11,369.49 from the Claim Fund. The Tribunal also named Mr Mayne as the person liable for King’s…
Continue reading Mayne v King Developments Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Mayne v King Developments Pty Ltd [2015] QCATA 160
- Case
- [2015] QCATA 160
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether the Tribunal had applied the correct legislation in its decision. It was noted that the legislation in force at the time of the sale was relevant. The court also had to consider whether the Appeal Tribunal was correct in conducting a de novo hearing of the matter. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain whether the appellant was sufficiently informed of the de novo hearing and if the Appeal Tribunal's reasons for conducting such a hearing were clear and communicated to the appellant. Finally, the court had to determine whether the appellant's failure to file any material in response to the de novo hearing affected his interests, and if the findings of fact were open on the evidence presented.
The court found that the Appeal Tribunal was entitled to order a de novo hearing, and its reasons for doing so were clear and had been communicated to the appellant prior to the hearing. The appellant was given the opportunity to file material but chose not to do so, which was deemed to be against his own interests. The findings of fact were considered open on the evidence, and there were no grounds to grant leave to appeal as no error by the Member caused substantial injustice or raised a question of public importance. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. This meant that while the appellant was allowed to pursue an appeal, the appeal was not successful, and the original decision of the Appeal Tribunal was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave to appeal granted
2. Appeal dismissed.
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.