McIntyre v Hatch
[2014] QCATA 143
•16 June 2014
| CITATION: | McIntyre v Hatch [2014] QCATA 143 |
| PARTIES: | Greg McIntyre (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| James Hatch (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL034 -14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member Stilgoe, OAM |
| DELIVERED ON: | 16 June 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Leave to appeal refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where traffic accident – where discrepancies in evidence - whether grounds for leave to appeal Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 |
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
On Friday 10 May 2013, Mr Hatch was driving down Lawson St Southport and Mr McIntyre was exiting a car park onto Lawson St. The two cars collided. Mr Hatch filed a claim against Mr McIntyre for the cost of repairs to his car. Two Justices of the Peace, sitting in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the tribunal, found that Mr McIntyre was 7/8 responsible for the collision so ordered that he pay 7/8 of Mr Hatch’s repair bill.
Mr McIntyre wants to appeal that decision. He says that Mr Hatch provided incorrect details about the time of the accident and the details of the cars involved. He says that Mr Hatch’s version of events was incorrect because there was a third car – a taxi – which should have prevented Mr Hatch’s progress down Lawson St.
Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary. The principles the appeals tribunal applies when considering an application for leave to appeal are as summarised by Keane JA (as His Honour then was) in Pickering v McArthur[1]:
There are numerous authorities, in varying language but with unvarying emphasis, that 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.
[1][2005] QCA 294 at [3].
The appeal tribunal will not usually disturb findings of fact on appeal if the evidence is capable of supporting the conclusions.[2] An appellate tribunal may interfere if the conclusion is ‘contrary to compelling inferences’ in the case.[3]
[2]Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 at 561; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 125-126.
[3]Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 at 10.
At the hearing, Mr McIntyre admitted that there was a collision in Lawson St on 10 May 2013 between his car and Mr Hatch’s car[4]. Once the learned Justices accepted that admission, discrepancies about the exact time of the collision, or the exact year of manufacture of the cars involved, was irrelevant.
[4]Transcript page 1-13, lines 1-6.
Both parties gave evidence about whether a taxi was present that might have influenced the drivers’ behaviour. The learned Justice acknowledged that in their reasons for decision. Mr Hatch did not deny that there was a taxi present; he said he didn’t see one[5]. They did not accept that the taxi blocked Mr Hatch’s route, but they did accept that it may have blocked Mr McIntyre’s vision[6]. The evidence can support the learned Justices’ findings and there is nothing in the transcript to persuade me that they should have taken a different view of the facts.
[5]Transcript page 1-7, lines 8-9.
[6]Transcript page 1-22, lines 31-33.
There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Justices were in error. Leave to appeal should be refused.
0
3
0