Monazeh v Norris Motors Group
[2024] QCATA 139
•16 December 2024
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Monazeh v Norris Motors Group [2024] QCATA 139
PARTIES:
ABBAS ALI RAHIMI MONAZEH (applicant)
v
NORRIS MOTORS GROUP (respondent)
APPLICATION NO:
APL301-22
MATTER TYPE:
Appeal
DELIVERED ON:
16 December 2024
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Judicial Member WA Isdale
ORDER:
Leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal – where the applicant seeks to rely on additional evidence – where the applicant asserts that the Tribunal below determined its Decision prior to the hearing – whether the Tribunal below erred in its decision
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 142(3)(a)(i)
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
Mr Monazeh had dealings with the respondent concerning his acquisition of a motor vehicle. This involved the obtaining of finance. Mr Monazeh brought a minor civil dispute to QCAT concerning his claim that certain representations were made to him in connection with the interest rate applicable to the finance.
QCAT hearing
The matter was heard by QCAT on 5 September, 2022. The hearing, before an Adjudicator, commenced at 3:26pm and concluded at 4:28pm. It is recorded in 31 pages of transcript.
The learned Adjudicator gave the Tribunal’s decision at the time. The Adjudicator found that the written agreement did not disclose the interest rate. It was also found that the financier, Macquarie Bank, was at fault in this regard, rather than the respondent.
The Adjudicator was not satisfied that the respondent, or its employees, misled Mr Monazeh into believing that the interest rate was 2.06%.
Accordingly, the Adjudicator found that Mr Monazeh had not discharged the burden of proof that the respondent had misled him. Because of this, the application was dismissed.
Application for leave to appeal
Mr Monazeh seeks leave to appeal from that finding.
Section 142(3)(a)(i) of the QCAT Act requires that leave to appeal must be obtained.
Leave to would ordinarily be granted where there is a reasonable argument that there was an error by the Adjudicator such that an appeal would be necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant which was caused by that error.[1]
[1]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 [3].
The grounds of appeal are that –
1. There (sic) people present and allowed to testify who were not present at the time that the conversation took place about the interest rate. I wonder how they could make a contribution to the case without being present in the room. I did try to make the adjudicator aware of that but I will (sic) warned not to intergere (sic).
2. The case was my word against Mr Drewet (sic) word and I do not understand why his word was better than mine.
3. My wife was presnt (sic) at the time of the conversation and she would like to express her words to the Tribunal.
4. Listening to the conclusion made by the adjudicator anyone would discover that the decision was made prior to the hearing and the actual hearing had no bearing on the decision made by the adjudicator.
5. Adjudicator was also astonished by lack of disclosure of interest rate in the signed finance document.[2]
[2]Application received 10 October, 2022, Part C.
Regarding Ground 1
The applicant was present at the hearing and participated in it. Any objections to witnesses ought to be made at the hearing rather than being sought to be made later on an appeal. The parties chose what questions to ask and are bound by the decisions they made at the hearing.
The transcript discloses that the Adjudicator conducted the hearing in an even-handed way and did no more than control it to the extent needed to progress it in an orderly fashion.
Should Mr Monazeh have wished at the time to direct additional attention to this aspect, there is no indication that he would not have been heard properly in respect of it. This ground has not been established.
Regarding Ground 2
The Adjudicator said that there was nothing which would indicate that someone was more truthful than anyone else and that the written material would have allowed a calculation to be made.[3] At this point Mr Monazeh interrupted so the sentence was not finished.[4]
[3]T 1-18 lines 39 to 42.
[4]T 1-18 lines 43 to 45.
Mr Monazeh stated that he did not do the calculation. He stated that he was entitled to trust the company and was misled.[5]
[5]T 1-19 lines 3 to 4.
The Adjudicator then pointed out the written warning on the document to the effect that if the person does not understand it they should not sign it until they consult their own solicitor.[6]
[6]T 1-19 lines 14 to 18.
The presence of this warning was referred to in the Adjudicator’s reasons.[7]
[7]T 1-28 lines 40 to 41.
It is the responsibility of the Adjudicator to decide what evidence to accept and it is clear that the decision in this matter was guided by this piece of written evidence which was signed by Mr Monazeh.[8] This ground of appeal has not been established.
[8]T 1-19 line 12.
Regarding Ground 3
Mr Monazeh has not complied with Direction 5(a)(i) given by this Tribunal on 10 January, 2023. Direction 5 required submissions about, inter alia, why the additional evidence was not available to the Tribunal below. Accordingly, it will not be able to be heard now. This ground of appeal has not been established.
Regarding Ground 4
The transcript does not disclose anything other than that a fair hearing was provided. There is no basis shown upon which a finding of improper conduct could be established in respect of the hearing by the Tribunal. There is nothing shown which would support a finding that the matter had been pre-judged. This ground of appeal has not been established.
Regarding Ground 5
This is not capable of being a ground of appeal.
Conclusion and Resolution
None of the grounds of appeal have been shown to have any realistic prospects of success. The findings of the learned Adjudicator were open on the evidence and adequate reasons for the decision were given.
Mr Monazeh has not shown that there is a reasonable argument that there was an error by the Adjudicator such that on appeal would be necessary to correct a substantial injustice to Mr Monazeh which was caused by that error. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.
Orders
Leave to appeal refused.
0