Molectra Technologies Pty Limited v Prime Engineering Pty Limited

CITATION: Molectra Technologies Pty Limited v Prime Engineering Pty Limited [2012] QCATA 112

PARTIES:	Molectra Technologies Pty Limited (Appellant)
v
Prime Engineering Pty Limited (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL459-11

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Dr J R Forbes, Member

DELIVERED ON: 26 June 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    Leave to appeal granted.

2.    Appeal allowed.

3.    Decision of the Tribunal dated 3 November set aside.

4.    Matter remitted for rehearing by another Adjudicator.

CATCHWORDS:

Appeal – minor civil claim – whether leave should be granted – whether Appellant allowed to present case – whether sufficient evidence to support finding – whether reasons sufficient

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, ss 28, 29, 32, 57, 95, 122, 142(3)(a)(i)

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Prime Engineering Pty Limited (Prime) sued Molectra Technologies Pty Limited (Molectra) for $5,500, as fees for a mechanical design.  Molectra was in search of a better and cheaper method of attaching blades to a grinding machine.  Molectra declined to pay, saying that the design it bargained for was not delivered.

1. The Adjudicator considered that the parties’ arrangements were too imprecise and uncertain to find a contract, but instead of dismissing the claim he awarded Prime $5,137.90 by way of quantum meruit.

1. Prime had legal representation at the hearing; Molectra did not.The form and contents of Molectra’s application for leave to appeal suggest that those arrangements are unaltered.  Molectra now complains: (i) that it did not have a proper opportunity to present its case.  It also alleges that:

(ii)Its representative, Mr Divosi, was intimidated by counsel for Prime;

(iii)Divosi was ridiculed for lack of legal qualifications;

(iv)The Tribunal erred in accepting that the work in question was finished and professionally presented;

(v)The Tribunal erred in dismissing Molectra’s claim that the material delivered was merely a sketch of existing parts of the subject machine;

(vi)That the Tribunal erred in making the existing award in favour of Prime in the absence of any timekeeping records.

1. The grounds involve some repetition, and, as appears below, I do not find it necessary to deal with all of them.

Denial of a Fair Opportunity to Defend?

1. It is an error of law to prevent a party from fully and properly presenting his case,[1] and excessive intervention by a decision maker may have that effect.[2]  A perusal of the transcript shows that the Adjudicator interrupted Molectra’s representative, Divosi, on more than 30 occasions.  However, unlike the courts, this Tribunal is not wedded to the adversary system; it may adopt an investigative role[3], and will sometimes be bound to do so.[4]  I do not overlook the fact that some interruptions were proper efforts to recall Divosi to relevance or to clarify assertions, and that Divosi himself interrupted the Adjudicator and others on several occasions.

   [1]        Stead v State…