Monazeh v Norris Motors Group - [2024] QCATA 139

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…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Monazeh v Norris Motors Group and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] QCATA 139
Decision Date: 16 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involves Monazeh, the applicant, challenging the decision of the Tribunal below, Norris Motors Group, in a matter concerning a dispute. The nature of the dispute is not explicitly detailed in the text, but it is clear that the applicant seeks leave to appeal the Tribunal’s decision. The applicant asserts that the Tribunal determined its decision prior to the hearing and seeks to rely on additional evidence, arguing that this constitutes an error on the part of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal below erred in its decision by determining the outcome before the hearing and by not considering the additional evidence presented by the applicant. The court had to consider the principles of appeal and the standard of review applicable to the Tribunal’s decision. The court also had to assess whether the applicant’s assertion that the Tribunal pre-determined its decision was substantiated and whether the Tribunal’s failure to consider the additional evidence was a material error affecting the outcome.

In evaluating the appeal, the court examined the principles of fairness and the proper conduct of administrative proceedings. The court found that the applicant’s assertion regarding the Tribunal's pre-determination was not substantiated and that the additional evidence presented did not warrant a different outcome. The court held that the Tribunal’s decision was not flawed and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the Tribunal’s process was unfair or that the outcome was affected by the alleged errors.

Consequently, the court refused the applicant’s request for leave to appeal. The court found that the applicant had not shown that the Tribunal’s decision was materially flawed or that there was any error of law or procedure that warranted an appeal. The court’s decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, ultimately determining that the Tribunal’s decision was sound.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused.

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.