Nortask Pty Ltd v Mount Isa Fleet Maintenance

[2013] QCATA 273

CITATION: Nortask Pty Ltd v Mount Isa Fleet Maintenance [2013] QCATA 273

PARTIES:	Nortask Pty Ltd (Appellant)
v
Dane Robert Inwood t/as Mount Isa Fleet Maintenance (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL213 -13
APL261 -13

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Ms P Stilgoe OAM, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 1 October 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1. The application to stay a decision is refused

CATCHWORDS:

MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – whether grounds for leave to appeal – whether grounds for a stay

Croney v Nand [1999] 2 Qd R 342.
Cook's Construction Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Australasia Pty Ltd [2008] 2 Qd R 453.

Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v S (2007) 98 ALD 329.
Kostopoulos v G E Commercial Finance Australia Pty Ltd [2005] QCA 311.
Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The appeal tribunal heard and determined this matter on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Nortask Pty Ltd and Mr Inwood filed competing claims that related to Mr Inwood’s maintenance work on Nortask’s heavy machinery. A Magistrate, sitting as an ordinary member of the tribunal, allowed Mr Inwood’s claim but dismissed Nortask’s claim. Nortask appealed both decisions and asked the tribunal to stay the learned Magistrate’s decision.  

2. The question of whether a stay of the original decision should be granted is usually addressed according to established principles: Is it an appropriate case to grant a stay?[1]  Does the applicant have an arguable case on appeal?[2]  Would a refusal of a stay render the appeal nugatory?[3]  Does the balance of convenience favour granting the stay?[4]

   [1]        Croney v Nand [1999] 2 Qd R 342 at 348.

   [2]Cook's Construction Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Australasia Pty Ltd [2008] 2 Qd R 453 at 455.

   [3]         Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v S (2007) 98 ALD

   [4]         Kostopoulos v G E Commercial Finance Australia Pty Ltd [2005] QCA 311.

3. The learned Magistrate gave careful and detailed reasons for his decision. Nortask’s grounds for appeal are based on the learned Magistrate’s findings of fact.  Findings of fact by a Tribunal will not usually be disturbed on appeal if the facts inferred by the Tribunal, upon which the finding is based, are capable of supporting its conclusions, and there is evidence capable of supporting any inferences underlining it.[5] I am not presently persuaded that Nortask has good prospects of success on appeal.

   [5]Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 at 561; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 125-126.

4. A refusal of the stay would not render the appeal nugatory. If the learned Magistrate’s decision is overturned, Mr Inwood can return the amount paid to him.

5. In addressing the balance of convenience, Nortask simply says that, if it fails in its application for leave to appeal, any disadvantage can be cured by an order that it pay extra interest. That submission does not go far enough. It does not explain why Mr Inwood should not have the benefit of the learned Magistrate’s decision pending the appeal tribunal’s decision.

6. The application for a stay of the learned Magistrate’s decision is refused.

          329 at 331.