Michael David Wilks v Tully Motors and Gregory M McIntyre SM

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Michael David Wilks brought an application for a Statutory Order of Review against Tully Motors and Gregory M McIntyre SM, the Stipendiary Magistrate of the Small Claims Tribunal at Tully. The applicant, a former solicitor, sought to challenge the dismissal of his claim for $5,000 against Tully Motors, alleging that they had performed unnecessary and expensive repairs on his taxi. The applicant alleged that the proceedings were unfair and that natural justice was denied at the hearing. The legal issues were whether the Small Claims Tribunal hearing was fair, if the applicant was given an opportunity to present and prepare his case, if the applicant was treated prejudicially, and if the referee acted in good faith and fairly listened to both parties. The central issue was whether there was a denial of natural justice. The court examined the Small Claims Tribunals Act 1973, which provides for limited judicial supervision of the referees’ decisions, with the only grounds for review being lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

The court found that there was no evidence of a denial of natural justice. The applicant had not been given a copy of the first respondent’s “Response” before the hearing, but the referee stated that this document did not influence his decision. The applicant also alleged that cross-examination of a witness occurred in his absence, but the referee stated that proceedings did not continue in his absence. Furthermore, the presence of the first respondent’s witness during the hearing did not offend the principles of natural justice, as the witness was an employee of the first respondent. The court concluded that the applicant had not shown a substantial breach of the rules of natural justice, and the application should be dismissed. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to this application to be taxed.

The second respondent, as is usual practice, did not seek costs against either party. Costs are only awarded against magistrates in very exceptional circumstances, such as serious misconduct, corruption, gross ignorance, or perversion. The court found that the second respondent had not committed any acts of serious misconduct, corruption, gross ignorance, or perversion, and therefore no order for costs, either in favour of or against the second respondent, would be made.