Morrell v Scooterhq

[2010] QCATA 85

CITATION: Morrell v Scooterhq [2010] QCATA 85

PARTIES:	Mr Robert Morrell (Appellant)
v
Scooterhq (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:            APL063-10   

MATTER TYPE:

HEARING DATE:   On the papers

HEARD AT:   Brisbane

DECISION OF: Judge Fleur Kingham, Deputy President

DELIVERED ON:   4 November 2010

DELIVERED AT:   Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: The Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS : 

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
 – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – whether any ground to grant leave to appeal – where no denial of procedural fairness – where no error in decision making process evident

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal 2009 ss 142(3)(a)(i), 28(3)(a), (d)

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr and Mrs Morrell purchased two scooter bikes from ScooterHQ in July 2008.  Both bikes came with a two year unlimited kilometre warranty.  The existence and operation of that warranty is not in dispute. 

1. The Morrells live in Conondale on the sunshine coast, approximately 200 kilometres away from ScooterHQ who are based in Southport. 

1. Between October 2008 and May 2009 at least 6, collectively, mechanical issues arose with the bikes.  For the most part, the Morrells had the bikes repaired under the warranty, organising transport at their cost.

1. On at least one occasion (2 March 2010) the bikes were collected by Sportswise Management Pty Ltd (also known as Derbi Importer) and taken to ScooterHQ for repairs.

1. The Morrells were not satisfied with the repairs carried out.  They continued to experience difficulties with the bikes.  Mr and Mrs Morrell brought a minor civil dispute application against ScooterHQ for the following:

(a)a refund of the $15,500 purchase price for both bikes;

(b)compensation for time, money and effort wasted on the bikes; and

(c)for ScooterHQ to collect the bikes at their own expense. 

1. The matter was heard on 9 April 2010. The learned Member dismissed the claim on the basis that it was not justified.  He concluded that the warranty was still in place and any further issues with the bikes could be assessed and fixed under the warranty.

1. Mr Morrell sought leave to appeal that decision.  Leave is necessary for a party to appeal to the appeal tribunal against a minor civil dispute.[1]  Leave to appeal is not normally granted unless there is an error in the decision or there is some question of general importance to which a decision of the Appeal Tribunal would be to the public advantage.

   [1] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal 2009 s142(3)(a)(i)

1. Mr Morrell bases his application on the grounds that the seriousness and nature of the matter was not comprehensively assessed by the learned Member and further, that he was not given an opportunity to verbally explain his case.

1. QCAT is under an obligation to ensure parties are afforded procedural fairness.[2]  QCAT must also act with as little formality and technicality and as much speed as a proper consideration of the matters before the tribunal permit.[3]  The transcript demonstrates that the learned Member identified the issues and the evidence relevant to those issues and gave the Morrells the opportunity to address him on those issues.

   [2] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal 2009 s28(3)(a)

   [3] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal 2009 s28(3)(d)

1. The learned Member listed the various mechanical problems experienced by the Morrells and then confirmed with both parties that the warranties were still in place.  He concluded that if the Morrells had ongoing problems with the bikes they were at liberty to get both assessed and fixed accordingly. 

1. The transcript of the proceedings shows that Mr Morrell was offered his opportunity to speak a number of times during the hearing.  It appears he did not go into elaborate detail in regards to the mechanical problems, perhaps because the learned Member appeared to understand them.

1. The learned Member assessed the evidence before him and concluded that the Morrell’s problems with the bikes could be dealt with under the warranties.  In those circumstances, he dismissed the claim for compensation.  No error in the learned Member’s decision making process is evident.  Both parties were given an opportunity to put forward their case.  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.