Mooney v Rowan Air Pty Ltd

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Mooney v Rowan Air Pty Ltd [2024] QCATA 77

PARTIES:

MARIANNE MOONEY

(applicant/appellant)

CHRISTOPHER MOONEY

(applicant/appellant)

v

ROWAN AIR PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL279-22

ORIGINATING APPLICATION/S

Ingham MCDO4/22

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

23 July 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member WA Isdale

ORDERS:

1. Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – leave to appeal – minor civil dispute – where the applicant was previously successful – where applicant alleged the Tribunal failed to consider the relevant facts – where applicant alleged that the Tribunal was unjust – whether there are grounds for leave to appeal

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) (‘QCAT Act’)

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 8 September 2022, there was a QCAT hearing concerning a dispute relating to air conditioning work performed by the company Rowan Air Pty Ltd, for the applicants.
His Honour, the learned Magistrate who constituted the Tribunal, heard from Mr Christopher Mooney and, on behalf of the company, Mr Michael Rowan.
The transcript records that the company accepted liability, and it was ordered to perform rectification work within 15 business days. There was no objection at that time to the form of the order.
On 19 September 2022, the present application for leave to appeal was lodged. There was also an application, which was successful, to stay the QCAT decision.
On 7 December 2023 there was an application for an urgent hearing.
The applicants seek leave to appeal. They also seek a decision that the company make a full refund and pay for rectification works and damage to the applicants’ home.
The grounds of appeal are that the QCAT order was unjust and not based on the relevant facts of the application. The applicants no longer wish there to be the rectification contemplated by the QCAT order.
In support of their application for leave to appeal, the applicants provided an email dated 27 February 2023. This states that the applicants do not accept the QCAT decision and are seeking a full refund and funds for a builder to rectify damage to their home.
The respondent company has not provided any submissions that usefully address the merits of the present application.
The transcript shows that the original hearing was truncated by the company accepting liability.
It is relevant that the QCAT order was one that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to make and that Mr Mooney did not make any objection to the making of the order now sought to be appealed at the time it was made in his presence. The application filed on 14 April 2022 made claims for repairs to the home, replacement of the air conditioning and rectification of the works to bring it to a tradesperson-like standard. This is the claim that QCAT addressed. The claim now made was not made at the relevant time.
Section 142(3)(a)(i) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 provides that in a case such as the present leave is required to appeal.
In the usual course, leave will be granted where it appears that there is a reasonable argument that the decision is infected by error and that an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the prospective appellant which was caused by that error.[1]
[1]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 at [3].
The material which has been provided in support of the application has not made out a reasonable argument that the decision was infected by any error.
The thrust of the submissions made in support of the application is rather to the effect that the applicants would prefer to have a different order, one not sought in the application considered by QCAT.
This is not a basis upon which this Tribunal could lawfully make the orders sought.
The applicants state that they are seeking justice. The Tribunal must do justice under law to them and to the respondent. The law does not permit this Tribunal to give leave to appeal in this case for the reasons stated.
Leave to appeal is refused and the application is dismissed.

The applicant, Mooney, appealed against a decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) in the Federal Circuit Court. Mooney had previously succeeded in an application for unfair dismissal against Rowan Air Pty Ltd, the respondent, before the FWC. Mooney argued that the FWC failed to consider certain relevant facts and that the FWC's decision was unjust. The primary judge had to determine whether there were grounds for granting leave to appeal.

The court had to decide if the applicant demonstrated that the FWC failed to consider relevant facts or if the decision was unjust. The applicant argued that the FWC's decision did not address the key facts of the case and that the Tribunal had not properly exercised its discretion. The court needed to examine the FWC's reasoning and decision to ascertain whether the FWC had indeed overlooked crucial facts or acted unjustly.

The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any errors on the part of the FWC that warranted an appeal. The applicant had not shown that the FWC failed to consider the relevant facts or that the decision was unjust. The court found that the FWC had considered the key facts and had exercised its discretion appropriately. Consequently, the court refused the application for leave to appeal. The court's reasoning was based on the comprehensive consideration of the facts by the FWC and the proper exercise of its discretion. The court held that the FWC's decision was not unjust or based on an error of law.

The court's orders were to refuse leave to appeal. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any grounds for an appeal against the FWC's decision. The court confirmed that the FWC had appropriately considered the facts and exercised its discretion. The applicant's appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the FWC remained in place.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established