Newman v Whitehand
[2014] QCATA 230
•25 August 2014
| CITATION: | Newman v Whitehand [2014] QCATA 230 |
| PARTIES: | Sarah Ann Newman (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| Glen Whitehand (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL219 -14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member Stilgoe, OAM |
| DELIVERED ON: | 25 August 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Leave to appeal refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where conflicting evidence of terms of engagement - whether grounds for leave to appeal Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 |
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
Mr Whitehand is an electrician. In November 2012, he did some work in Ms Newman’s home and rendered a bill for $352.00. Ms Newman didn’t pay so Mr Whitehand filed an application in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the tribunal. Two Justices of the Peace, sitting as the tribunal, ordered Ms Newman pay Mr Whitehand $344.27 plus the filing fee.
Ms Newman wants to appeal that decision. She says the learned Justices erred in finding that Mr Whitehand was entitled to charge two hours’ labour. She says the learned Justices erred in finding that Mr Whitehand was entitled to charge the $147.94 cost of the light fitting.
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].
The appeal tribunal will not usually disturb findings of fact on appeal if the evidence is capable of supporting the conclusions.[3] An appellate tribunal may interfere if the conclusion is ‘contrary to compelling inferences’ in the case.[4]
[3]Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 at 561; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 125-126.
[4]Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 at 10.
The learned Justices accepted the evidence of an independent witness, Mr Flatlow, that Mr Whitehand worked for about one hour and twenty minutes attending to the work in Ms Newman’s home. The learned Justices accepted that there was some additional travel time[5]. The parties agreed that Mr Whitehand’s hourly rate was $70. The evidence can support the learned Justices’ finding that Mr Whitehand worked for two hours and I can find no compelling reason to come to a different view.
[5]Transcript page 1-37, lines 36 – 42.
Ms Newman’s submission about the cost of the light fitting depends upon the learned Justices accepting her version of an initial conversation she had with Mr Whitehand. The learned Justices identified the conflict[6] but they do not deal with it explicitly in their reasons.
[6]Transcript page 1-37, lines 22 – 23.
It is not my task to decide where the truth lay as between the competing versions given by the parties.[7] My sole duty is to determine whether there is an error in the primary decision.
[7]Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 129 per Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Kirby JJ.
It seems the learned Justices preferred Mr Whitehand’s version of events. The evidence can support that conclusion and there is nothing in the transcript to persuade me that the learned Justices should have taken a different view of the facts.
There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Justices were in error. Leave to appeal should be refused.
0
4
0