McKenna v Macktrans Pty Ltd - [2020] QCATA 72

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

McKenna v Macktrans Pty Ltd [2020] QCATA 72

PARTIES: BRIAN MCKENNA

(applicant/appellant)

V

MACKTRANS PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL094-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO61324/18 (Brisbane)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

20 May 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Fitzpatrick

ORDERS:

1. The application to stay a decision is refused.

CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where no leave to appeal yet granted – whether good arguable case on appeal – whether disadvantage demonstrated – balance of competing interests of parties

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 58, s 142, s 145

Cooks Construction Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Aust Pty Ltd [2008] 2 Qd R 453

Day v Humphrey [2017] QCA 104

Hessey-Tenny & Anor v Jones [2018] QCATA 131

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

KAJ Wilson of Ron Lawson Lawyer

Respondent:

N John of KJK Legal

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

The applicant, Brian McKenna, has made an application for leave to appeal or appeal a decision of the Tribunal, dated 7 February 2020. The current applicant was the respondent to the proceedings below, and was ordered to pay to the current respondent, Macktrans Pty Ltd (‘Macktrans’), an amount of $16,280.00 within thirty (30) days of the decision in full satisfaction of Macktrans’ minor debt claim.
Macktrans performed freight forwarding services for the applicant between 18 April 2018 and 31 May 2018.[1] That the work was performed, or the money claimed in the invoices was owning, does not appear to be in dispute.
[1]Macktrans Pty Ltd’s application for minor civil dispute – minor debt filed on 18 October 2018 in MCDO61324/18 (Brisbane).
By way of response filed on 1 November 2019 in the originating proceeding, the applicant contended that he had paid the funds to an account fraudulently provided by a hacker and not to the respondent’s account. The applicant contended that the fault lay with the respondent. The Tribunal decided the matter in favour of Macktrans.
The applicant sought a stay of a decision of the Tribunal dated 7 February 2020.[2] On 8 May 2020, I decided to refuse the applicant’s application for a stay. The applicant requested reasons for my decision, which are set out below.
[2]Application to stay a decision filed on 3 April 2020

What must be established for a stay to be granted?

The applicant contends that the Tribunal made errors of both fact and law in reaching its decision.[3] As the decision which is sought to be appealed is a minor civil dispute and some of the alleged errors are of fact, leave to appeal is required.[4] Leave has not yet been granted to appeal.
[3]Application for leave to appeal or appeal filed on 3 April 2020.
[4]Queensland Civil and…

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 McKenna v Macktrans Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: McKenna v Macktrans Pty Ltd [2020] QCATA 72
Case: [2020] QCATA 72
Decision Date: 20 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In McKenna v Macktrans Pty Ltd, the appellant sought to stay a decision made by the District Court of Queensland. The underlying dispute concerned the dismissal of the appellant’s claim for damages against the respondent, Macktrans Pty Ltd, for injuries sustained in a workplace accident. The District Court ruled against the appellant, and subsequently, the appellant sought to appeal the decision and stay the proceedings until the appeal was determined.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant had demonstrated a good arguable case on appeal and sufficient disadvantage to warrant a stay of the proceedings. The court had to consider the general principles governing the grant or refusal of a stay, particularly in light of the appellant's failure to secure leave to appeal. The court was tasked with assessing the balance of the competing interests of the parties involved, including the appellant's right to a fair appeal and the respondent's interest in finality.

The court found that the appellant had not made out a case that would warrant a stay of the proceedings. The appellant had not demonstrated a good arguable case on appeal, and there was no substantial disadvantage to the appellant in proceeding with the enforcement of the District Court's decision. The court emphasised that the appellant's failure to secure leave to appeal was a significant factor in the decision to deny the stay. The balance of competing interests weighed against the appellant, leading to the refusal of the application to stay the proceedings.

Accordingly, the court ordered that the application to stay the decision of the District Court was refused. This decision upheld the District Court’s ruling and allowed the enforcement of the original decision to proceed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to stay a decision is 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.