Mepham v Keyz Pty Ltd

Case [2022] QCATA 83

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND


ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION

Mepham v Keyz Pty Ltd  [2022] QCATA 83
PARTIES: DEREK JOHN AMOORE MEPHAM

(applicant)

v
KEYS PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL374-20

MATTER TYPE:

Motor vehicle matter

DELIVERED ON: 

22 June 2022

HEARING DATE:

16 June 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr J R Forbes

ORDERS:

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – motor vehicle damage – whether minor collision occurred – where recipient of claim paid insurance excess to insurer – where insured subsequently seeks refund of amount paid as excess – where insured denies that collision occurred and that damage resulted – where insured exchanged registration and other information at scene of alleged collision – where primary tribunal dismissed action by insured – where insured seeks leave to appeal – where no reasonably appellable error shown – where leave to appeal refused

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 142, Third Schedule

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission [1990] HCA 47;(1990) 171 CLR 167

Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
F V Rentals t/a Forbes Realty Rentals v Anderson [2014] QCATA 181
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118http:// v Peacy [1945] AC 304
v QFG and KG [1998] QCA 228.

LemongroveServices Pty Ltd trading as Reimer Winter Williamson Lawyers and Anor v Rilroll Pty Ltd and Ors [2019] NSWCA 174

Manonai v Burns [2011] WASCA 165
Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323
Myers v Medical Practitioners Board (2007) 18 VR 48

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass [2009] 1 Qd R 41

Robinson v Cox [2011] QCATA 302
Secretary to the Department of Premier and Cabinet v Hulls [1999] 3 VR 331
Streak v Newton [1989] NSWCA 202

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

The applicant in person.

Mr S A Kerr for the respondent.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 

  1. On 25 July 2020 at about 9.40 on a rainy Saturday night the applicant (`Mepham’) was driving a vehicle, registered number 883KVX, in the vicinity of Cavill Avenue, Surfers Paradise. He stopped in a line of cars standing at   traffic lights. The car immediately in front of Mepham’s was a Hyundai Tucson, number NMU10 (`the Tucson’). The lights changed, the cars moved off and then, according to Mepham, the Tucson suddenly `propped’. Mepham strenuously maintains that he stopped his vehicle without making any contact with the Tucson.

Collision alleged

  1. However, the driver of the Tucson alighted from her car complaining that Mepham’s vehicle had collided with the rear of hers. She and Mepham stopped and exchanged their registration and other details.

  2. The definition of “minor civil dispute” includes “a claim for an amount of not more than the…

Continue reading Mepham v Keyz Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mepham v Keyz Pty Ltd [2022] QCATA 83
Case
[2022] QCATA 83
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mepham v Keyz Pty Ltd involved a dispute over motor vehicle damage, with the insured party seeking a refund of the insurance excess paid to the insurer. The insured party denied any collision and resulting damage. The primary tribunal dismissed the insured's action, and the insured sought leave to appeal the tribunal's decision. The court had to determine whether there was a reasonably arguable error warranting an appeal. The insured argued that the tribunal incorrectly interpreted the exchange of information at the scene of the alleged collision as an admission of liability. The tribunal found that the exchange did not constitute an admission of liability and that the insured failed to provide evidence of the alleged collision and damage.

The court held that the insured had not demonstrated a reasonably arguable error in the tribunal's decision. The exchange of information at the scene of the alleged collision did not amount to an admission of liability, and the insured's denial of the collision and damage was not sufficient to establish an error. The insured's argument that the tribunal should have considered additional evidence was rejected, as the tribunal had already considered all relevant evidence and made a reasoned decision. The insured's appeal was dismissed as there was no reasonably arguable error in the tribunal's decision.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The insured party's argument that the tribunal incorrectly interpreted the exchange of information at the scene of the alleged collision as an admission of liability was rejected, and the court found no reasonably arguable error in the tribunal's decision. The insured's failure to provide evidence of the alleged collision and damage was also noted as a factor in the dismissal of the appeal. The tribunal's decision was affirmed, and no leave to appeal was granted.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal is 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.