Pappas v Meikeljohn's Accountants - [2017] QCATA 60

CITATION:

Pappas v Meiklejohn’s Accountants [2017] QCATA 60

PARTIES:	Athanasia Pappas (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Meiklejohn’s Accountants (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL381 -16

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

29 March 2017

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Stilgoe OAM

DELIVERED ON:

22 May 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application for an extension of time is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TIME, EXTENSION AND ABRIDGMENT – where mediation agreement entered into by respondent on own behalf and on behalf of his mother – where breach of agreement – where tribunal made order to give effect to agreement – where application for leave to appeal order made out of time – whether grounds to extend time

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 61(1), 61(3), 85(5)

Coppens v Water Wise Design Pty Ltd
Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman and Anor [2011] QCAT 229

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

Applicant:	S Lane of Counsel instructed by Rostron Carlyle
Respondent:	S Gow of Legends Legal Group

REASONS FOR DECISION

Athanasia Pappas is an elderly lady. She has two sons, Speros and Dimitrios. In an enduring power of attorney dated 7 November 2013, Ms Pappas appointed both sons as her attorneys, to act severally.
In August 2015, Meiklejohn’s Accountants filed a minor debt claim against Ms Pappas and Dimitri, for $25,410.99. The claim was reduced from $32,489.50 to bring it within the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the tribunal.
Annexed to the claim were four invoices, only one of which was addressed to Ms Pappas. The other three invoices were addressed to ‘Mr D Pappas’. The biggest invoice, $19,509.60, was addressed to Mr D Pappas, director of Pappas Pty Ltd. That invoice was dated 17 August 2009.
The dispute went to mediation. Dimitrios appeared at the mediation. The parties agreed that ‘the respondent’ would pay the full amount of the debt by monthly payments of $500 commencing 2 March 2016, with additional payments of $250 per month in the second half of the year until the settlement sum was paid in full.
Neither Dimitrios nor Ms Pappas complied with the agreement. Meiklejohn’s asked the tribunal to formalise the agreement into an order. After giving both parties the opportunity to make submissions about Meiklejohn’s application, the tribunal ordered accordingly,[1] by a decision dated 30 June 2016.
[1]Pursuant to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (2009) (Qld) s 85(5).
The decision was registered as a judgment in the Magistrates Court on 19 July 2016. Speros found out about the Magistrates Court judgment, and the tribunal order, in mid to late September 2016. On 14 November 2016, Speros filed an application for leave to appeal. Speros also filed an application for an extension of time in which to file the application for leave to appeal.
The tribunal may extend a time limit fixed for the start of a proceeding.[2] The tribunal…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pappas v Meikeljohn's Accountants and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] QCATA 60
Decision Date: 22 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pappas v Meikeljohn's Accountants revolves around a dispute concerning a mediation agreement that was allegedly breached. The matter was before the court as an application for leave to appeal, specifically addressing procedural issues within the context of state and territory courts. The respondent, Meikeljohn, had entered into a mediation agreement on behalf of himself and his mother, and the appellant, Pappas, sought to appeal an order made by the tribunal enforcing the terms of that agreement. Central to the appeal was the question of whether the respondent's application for leave to appeal was made out of time and, if so, whether there were grounds to extend that time.

The court considered the procedural rules governing the timing of applications for leave to appeal in civil proceedings within state and territory courts. The appellant argued that the respondent's application for leave to appeal was untimely and thus should be dismissed. The respondent countered that there were exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of time, given the complexity and significance of the issues involved. The court was required to weigh the respondent's failure to adhere to the strict timelines against the potential merits of the appeal and any mitigating factors that might warrant an extension.

In assessing the application, the court found that while the respondent had a valid argument regarding the breach of the mediation agreement, the application for leave to appeal was indeed made beyond the prescribed time limit. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the delay and found no exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of time. Consequently, the court ruled that the application for leave to appeal was untimely and refused the application for an extension of time. This decision underscored the importance of strict compliance with procedural deadlines in civil proceedings, particularly in matters involving jurisdictional orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for an extension of time is 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.