Morley v Smith - [2016] QCATA 4

CITATION:

Morley v Smith [2016] QCATA 4

PARTIES:	Susan Elise Morley (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Angela Maree Smith (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL248 -15

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Stilgoe OAM

DELIVERED ON:

5 January 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – MINOR DEBT – where loan agreement signed on behalf of deregistered company – where loan not repaid – where claim by deregistered company – where claim withdrawn – where subsequent claim by individual – where claim dismissed - whether grounds for leave to appeal

Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294
Clout & Ors v Klein & Ors [2001] QSC 401

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

Angela Smith borrowed $5,000 at a monthly interest rate of 25% and a default interest rate of 35%. In August 2009 Ms Smith signed an acknowledgement of debt that showed the lender as Morley Estates Pty Ltd.
In 2012, Morley Estates Pty Ltd filed a minor debt claim against Ms Smith, claiming in excess of $25,000. The claim was withdrawn when it was revealed to the tribunal that Morley Estates Pty Ltd was a deregistered company. In 2015, Ms Morley filed a minor debt claim in her own name seeking recovery of the same debt. The tribunal dismissed that claim.
Ms Morley wants to appeal that decision. Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.[1] Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.[2]
[1]QCAT Act, s 142(3)(a)(i).
[2]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 at [3].
Ms Morley submits the tribunal erred in dismissing the claim because the uncontested evidence before it showed that Ms Morley lent Ms Smith the money and Ms Smith had not repaid it. Ms Morley submits that, because Morley Estates Pty Ltd was deregistered prior to the loan, the company could not have loaned the money and, therefore, Ms Morley was the only possible source of the loan.

Ms Morley is not correct in her submission that the uncontested evidence before it showed that she lent Ms Smith the money. There was, in fact, no evidence to that effect before the tribunal. Ms Morley had not sworn an affidavit in support of her claim. She did not give evidence at the hearing. She was represented by a collection agent, Mr McGrath, who made submissions on Ms Morley’s behalf but did not call her to give evidence. Mr McGrath acknowledged that he was unable to produce…

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.

Continue reading Morley v Smith

Details

AGLC: Morley v Smith [2016] QCATA 4
Case: [2016] QCATA 4
Decision Date: 5 January 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerns a dispute between the parties, Morley and Smith, regarding an outstanding debt of $3,000. The debt arose from a loan agreement that was signed on behalf of a deregistered company. The loan was not repaid, and the deregistered company initially pursued the debt but later withdrew its claim. Subsequently, the individual, Morley, made a claim against Smith for the outstanding debt, which was dismissed. The primary legal issue before the court was whether there were grounds for granting leave to appeal against the dismissal of the claim.

The court examined the grounds for leave to appeal, considering the nature of the dispute as a minor civil matter. The court noted that the appeal was from a decision of the Local Court, which had dismissed the claim for the outstanding debt. The court considered the merits of the case, including the fact that the deregistered company had already withdrawn its claim, and the individual's subsequent claim was dismissed due to lack of standing. The court found that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted granting leave to appeal, as the individual's claim was not in the public interest and did not raise any significant legal issues.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. The court determined that the individual did not have standing to pursue the debt as the deregistered company had already withdrawn its claim, and the individual's subsequent claim did not provide any new grounds for the appeal. The court also considered that the amount in dispute was relatively minor and did not warrant further litigation. The final order was that leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. 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.