Milne v DMV Electrical

[2022] QCATA 68

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Milne v DMV Electrical [2022] QCATA 068

PARTIES:

CLIFF MILNE

(applicant)

v

DMV ELECTRICAL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL347-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO1524-19

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

27 May 2022

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lumb

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – where respondent performed electrical work for the applicant – where applicant alleged that the work performed was poor or dangerous – where Tribunal dismissed application – whether error by Tribunal in the manner in which the case was conducted – whether Tribunal failed to address some issues or material

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28, s 142

11 Oonoonba Road Pty Ltd & Anor v ACP Properties (Townsville) Pty Ltd & Ors [2021] QCA 254
Berry v Treasure & Anor [2021] QCATA 61
Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott (2016) 331 ALR 550, (2016) 90 ALJR 679, [2016] HCA 22
Saxer v Hume [2022] QCATA 25

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant/Appellant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. By an Application for leave to appeal or appeal filed on 13 November 2020 (the Appeal Application), the Applicant seeks leave to appeal against a decision made by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 28 October 2021 (the Decision).[1]

   [1]The Appeal Application states that the Decision was received by the Applicant on 15 November 2021.

2. The Decision was made in a proceeding which was commenced by the Applicant by an Application for Minor Civil Dispute – consumer dispute (the MCD Application) filed on 14 October 2019.

3. By the MCD Application, the Applicant claimed an amount of $2,100.00 together with payment of the filing fee of $345.80. The Respondent was the only respondent to the MCD Application.  At the hearing, the Applicant increased the amount of his primary claim to $3,000.00 but reduced the claim for the filing fee to $123.20.[2]

   [2]Transcript:  T1-2 lines 18-40.

4. The hearing of the MCD Application proceeded on 16 October 2020.

5. By the Decision, the Tribunal (constituted by an Adjudicator) dismissed the MCD Application.

The Applicant’s claim

1. The Applicant’s claim arose out of electrical work performed by the Respondent, an electrical contractor, on a new shed at the Applicant’s property.

2. The Applicant alleged poor or dangerous workmanship on the part of the Respondent.  Ultimately, the Applicant claimed a full refund of the money ($3,000.00) paid to the Respondent for the electrical work.

3. There was no dispute that:

   (a)the Respondent provided a quote dated 6 March 2019 for electrical work in the amount of $2,992.00 (including GST);

   (b)the Respondent issued a tax invoice dated 28 March 2019, for the work performed, in the total amount of $3,000.00 (GST inclusive);

   (c)the amount of the invoice was paid in full.

4. In the MCD Application, the Applicant identified the following issues with the Respondent’s work (I…