McCoist v Jones - [2012] QCATA 118

CITATION:

McCoist v Jones [2012] QCATA 118

PARTIES:	Julie Anne McCoist (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Tony Robert Jones (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL405-11

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr J R Forbes, Member

DELIVERED ON:

26 April 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Application for leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – primary decision turning on findings of fact and credit – whether finding contrary to evidence – leave refused

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

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 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The question in this case is whether a payment of $17,100 by the Applicant, Julie Anne McCoist to the Respondent, Tony Robert Jones, was by way of gift or loan.

The original hearing took place on 4 November 2010, when Jones was ordered to pay McCoist the sum of $10,000. Upon an appeal by Jones the Tribunal ordered a rehearing[1]. The Tribunal subsequently dismissed McCoist’s claim.[2] McCoist now seeks leave[3] to appeal.
[1]Jones v McCoist [2011] QCATA 212; 16 August 2011.
[2]McCoist v Jones [2011] QCAT 498; 5 October 2011.
[3]As required by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act), s 142(3)(a)(i).

McCoist’s Case

The parties met in September 2008, and began living together in Jones’ residence at Wynnum some 3 months later. Soon afterwards McCoist purchased and wore an engagement ring, and advertised their engagement on the internet “Facebook” site.[4] But after a brief separation in October 2009, the relationship came to an end in February 2010.
[4]T 23.

When the parties met, Jones was burdened with debts incurred by or for another woman with whom he had lived for some time. According to McCoist, she lent him $15,000[5], and a further $2,100 to clear his debts, so that they would be in a position to buy a house together. It is undisputed that the advances were respectively made on 3 and 5 June 2009, after McCoist received the proceeds of a WorkCover claim. Apart from bank records evidencing the mere facts of those payments, there is no documentation of the alleged loan.
[5]“OK I will loan you some money”: T 5. See also T 8, T 9, T 14.

According to McCoist it was only after their final, acrimonious separation that Jones “decided to say it was a gift”.[6] Between 16 and 22 February 2010 McCoist sent several text messages to him demanding payment, and asserting that “it was never a gift”.[7]

McCoist: Only a simpleton would give a gift of $17,000.

Presiding Member: When people are in relationships they do a whole lot of things ... in certain categories of relationships there is an inference that ... you are not entering into ... legally enforceable transactions.”[8]

[6]Transcript of rehearing (“T”) 5 October 2011…

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 McCoist v Jones

Details

AGLC: McCoist v Jones [2012] QCATA 118
Case: [2012] QCATA 118
Decision Date: 26 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of McCoist v Jones involved a dispute between the two parties in the context of a minor civil matter. The primary decision was based on findings of fact and assessments of credibility. McCoist, the applicant, sought leave to appeal against the decision of the lower court, arguing that the findings were contrary to the evidence presented. The case was brought before the court of appeal, where the legal issues revolved around the correctness of the lower court's findings and whether they were supported by the evidence.

The court was required to determine whether the lower court's findings of fact were justified and whether they represented a proper application of the evidence. The court needed to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the weight that should be given to their testimonies. The primary issue was whether the findings made by the lower court were unreasonable or if there was a basis in the evidence for the conclusions reached.

In its reasoning, the court found that the lower court's findings were well-supported by the evidence and did not appear to be unreasonable. The court acknowledged that the assessment of credibility is largely within the domain of the lower court, and as such, the findings should be respected unless there was a clear error. The court concluded that the findings were not contrary to the evidence and that the lower court had exercised its discretion appropriately. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

The final order of the court was to refuse the application for leave to appeal, thereby upholding the decision of the lower court. This outcome confirmed the lower court's findings as valid and not open to appeal based on the evidence and the assessments made.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal 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.