Morton v Hull
[2010] QCATA 79
•17 November 2010
| CITATION: | Morton v Hull [2010] QCATA 79 |
| PARTIES: | Geoffrey Ian MORTON (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| Michael Edward HULL (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: APL081-10; APL096-10
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeal |
HEARING DATE: On the papers
HEARD AT: Brisbane
| DECISION OF: | Justice Alan Wilson, President |
DELIVERED ON: 17 November 2010
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE: Application for leave to appeal refused
| CATCHWORDS : | MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – FINDINGS OF FACTS – where parties engaged in unrecorded dealings for hire of equipment – where evidence from both parties was unclear and contradictory – where Magistrate ordered that appellant liable for a portion of respondent’s claim – whether Magistrate made incorrect findings of fact – whether decision contradicts weight of evidence Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 142(3)(a)(i) |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Hull brought proceedings in QCAT’s Minor Civil Disputes jurisdiction in Mackay against Mr Morton. He claimed Mr Morton and his business owed him $23,790.00 for the hire of a disc plough at $90.00 per day for 227 days, and also for the hire of a machinery trailer at $60.00 per day for 122 days.
Mr Morton disputed the claim, denying any indebtedness at all.
The matter went to a hearing before a Magistrate, acting as a QCAT adjudicator, on 4 May 2010. The learned Magistrate ordered that Mr Morton pay Mr Hull $3,760.00 for his claim, plus $250.00 for filing fee and $132.70 for a service fee, a total of $4,142.70.
Mr Morton has applied for leave to appeal that decision. Under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 a right of appeal from decisions in the Minor Civil Disputes jurisdiction is not automatic, and can only be brought with the leave of this Appeal Tribunal: s 142(3)(a)(i).
Leave to appeal will ordinarily only be granted where there is some question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage; or, there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision and reasonable prospect of the applicant would obtain further substantive relief. Another question sometimes asked is: is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant, caused by some error?
This Appeal Tribunal directed that Mr Morton’s application for leave to appeal (and his appeal, if leave is granted) would be determined ‘on the papers’[1] and both parties filed submissions. Mr Morton’s allegation is, in short, that Mr Hull’s claim and the judgment he obtained was based on false and misleading information and the learned Magistrate made mathematical errors and, also, estimates of loss which were unjustified, or wrong.
[1] Pursuant to s 32(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009
The transcript of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate shows, however, that he made a highly creditable effort to find where the justice might lie in a dispute between parties who had a history of confused, unrecorded business transactions, of which the matter which led to these proceedings was one. He allowed both parties to speak at length about their respective claims, and question each other (and he asked a number of appropriate and useful questions himself) and then gave short but informative reasons for his decision that, in light of the history of business relations between the parties, there had never been an intention on the part of either party that Mr Morton would hire the plough for more than two weeks, at $90.00 per day and the trailer for 28 days at $60.00 per day, plus a ramp.
Much of the debate was taken up with the circumstances in which Mr Hull’s equipment remained on Mr Morton’s property for some months and the learned Magistrate did, ultimately, allow an ‘arbitrary figure’ for $500.00 for a period of about three months when, as he was persuaded, Mr Morton should have returned the equipment.
The important or central aspects of the decision are that in the absence of any writing between the parties about the hire or use of the machinery, and in light of the history of past dealings about equipment between them, the learned Magistrate was entirely unpersuaded that Mr Hull was entitled to anything like his claim of almost $24,000.00; rather, in the face of confusing, unclear and contradictory evidence between the parties he did his best to determine what was adequate compensation for the hire of the equipment for a period which he decided, in the circumstances, was reasonable.
The transcript does not reveal any error or injustice in this process. Indeed, the learned Magistrate was careful and diligent to ask questions himself in an attempt to clarify the confusion surrounding the dealings between the parties. It is impossible not to be impressed, after reading the transcript, that his own efforts effectively and fairly produced, from the clouds of unclear evidence from both the parties, a result which was as just as it could be in the circumstances.
There is, then, no apparent error in the primary decision or any apparent prospect that the applicant for leave would obtain substantive relief, if leave was granted. Nor is there any indication in the material to suggest that leave is necessary to correct a substantial injustice, caused by some error, or any question of general importance upon which further agreement and a decision of this Appeal Tribunal would be to the public advantage.
In the circumstances the application for leave to appeal is refused.
0
0