Megabuy Pty Ltd v Express Data Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Express Online
[2014] QCATA 317
•17 November 2014
| CITATION: | Megabuy Pty Ltd and anor v Express Data Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Express Online [2014] QCATA 317 |
| PARTIES: | Megabuy Pty Ltd Dropship Central Pty Ltd (Applicants/Appellants) |
| v | |
| Express Data Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Express Online (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL360 -14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member Stilgoe OAM |
| DELIVERED ON: | 17 November 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Leave to appeal refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where purchase of goods – where goods not delivered – where lengthy supply chain – where point of failure to deliver goods not identified – where tribunal dismissed claim for cost of goods - 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
In January 2014 the New South Wales Teachers Federation placed an order by email with Megabuy Pty Ltd for four iPads. The Federation expected the iPads to be delivered to its office.
Such a simple transaction has a long supply chain. Megabuy placed the order through Dropship Central Pty Ltd, the second applicant, with Express Data Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Express Online. Express Online filled the order and shipped the iPads via Star Track Express Pty Limited.
On 30 January 2014, the Federation took delivery of an empty box. The Federation did not pay for the iPads. Megabuy wanted payment. It filed a claim in the minor disputes jurisdiction of the tribunal against the Federation, Express Online and Star Track Express. Dropship was also named as an applicant. Two Justices of the Peace dismissed the claim against all respondents.
Megabuy and Dropship want to appeal the decision so far as it relates to Express Online. They say that the learned Justices failed to provide adequate reasons for their decision. They say that the learned Justices erred in law in making their decision. They say the learned Justices failed to provide natural justice.
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].
The applicants submit there are two grounds to show that the tribunal failed to provide natural justice. The first ground is that they have been left to bear the cost of the iPads that were not delivered. That might be an unfair commercial result, but is it not a failure of the tribunal to provide natural justice.
The applicants also submit that the learned Justices’ failure to provide adequate reasons, or reasons that were ‘fraught with errors of law’ is a failure to provide natural justice. That may be true as a general proposition, but the failure to provide adequate reasons and reasons that contain errors of law are, usually, enough to establish a ground for leave to appeal without resorting to the principle of natural justice.
The applicants acknowledge that the obligation to provide reasons varies according to the nature of the case and that oral reasons, given in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction, should not be subjected to undue criticism. However, they submit that the learned Justices were required to make determinations on five questions of fact and law, and that the learned Justices failed to determine two of those questions. The applicants submit that the learned Justices did not determine the terms of the contract between the applicants and Express Online. Further, the applicants say the learned Justices did not determine whether Express Online complied with the terms of the contract.
The terms of trade between the applicants and Express Online were not in evidence before the learned Justices. I do not understand how the learned Justices could be expected to make findings on a contract for which they had no evidence. I also do not understand how the learned Justices could err in law in the interpretation of a contract, the terms of which were not put before them.
The applicants filed an affidavit in support of their application for leave to appeal which exhibits a copy of the terms and conditions of trade between Dropship and Express Online. The appeals tribunal will only accept fresh evidence if it was not reasonably available at the time the proceeding was heard and determined. Ordinarily, an applicant for leave to adduce such evidence must satisfy three tests. Could the applicants have obtained the evidence with reasonable diligence for use at the trial? If allowed, would the evidence probably have an important impact on the result of the case? Is the evidence credible?[3]
[3]Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404 at 408.
An application for leave to appeal is not, and should not be, an attempt to shore up the deficiencies of a party’s case at the initial hearing. The applicants have not explained why this material was not available earlier. The terms of trade between the parties in the supply chain was critical for the learned Justices’ decision, as they identified[4]. That evidence should not be admitted and the application for leave to appeal must proceed on the basis of the evidence before the learned Justices.
[4]Transcript page 1-36, lines 35 – 36.
The learned Justices could not make a finding about what happened to the iPads because there was no direct evidence from any person who was involved in the packing and shipping[5]. Express Online told the tribunal it boxed the iPads[6] ready for collection by Star Track. Star Track says it received and delivered a sealed box[7]. The Federation says it did not receive them[8]. There was no statement from the packer at Express Online, the delivery driver at Star Track or the Federation. If the learned Justices could not make a finding about where the iPads went, it therefore follows that they could not be satisfied that Express Online breached the terms of its contract with the applicants, whatever that contract involved.
[5]Transcript page 1-39, lines 7 – 9.
[6]Transcript page 1-21, lines41 – 45.
[7]Transcript page 1-23, lines 19 – 45.
[8]Transcript page 1-24, lines 17 – 18.
There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Justices were in error. Leave to appeal should be refused.
0