Peter Pershouse v Kydren Holdings Pty Ltd - [2022] QCA 179

[2022] QCA 179

COURT OF APPEAL

MORRISON JA
DALTON JA
JACKSON J

Appeal No 5552 of 2022
QCATA No 193 of 2019

PETER PERSHOUSE Applicant

KYDREN HOLDINGS PTY LTD Respondent
ACN 605 453 389

BRISBANE

MONDAY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2022

JUDGMENT

JACKSON J: This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the appellate tribunal of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal refusing the applicant leave to appeal to the appellate tribunal from the decision of the tribunal at first instance.

On 5 September 2016, the underlying proceeding was brought by the applicant filing an application for determination of a minor civil dispute, being a consumer dispute.[1] The principal subject of the dispute was whether the applicant was indebted to the respondent for work done and materials supplied as an automotive mechanic.

[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 12.

The relief applied for was an order that an invoice by the respondent to the applicant dated 12 February 2016 for $2,541 was not due and payable,[2] an order for the return of the applicant’s car, over which a lien was asserted by the respondent, and orders that the respondent pay damages and costs.

[2]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 13(2)(a)(ii).

On 16 May 2019, the proceeding was heard by the Magistrate at Bundaberg in his capacity as a member of the tribunal. The evidence reproduced for this application included the application with its 11 page statement of reasons why the applicant was seeking orders from the tribunal, the applicant’s affidavit and 18 attachments that were before the tribunal, and the transcript of the hearing.

The hearing took approximately 14 minutes. The tribunal found that the vehicle was given to the respondent. It worked on the motor that was originally in the vehicle and a replacement motor purchased by the applicant as a reconditioned motor and put it in the vehicle. There was more work done on the second motor. The tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to send the invoice and was entitled to payment of that bill. The tribunal found that the sum of $2,541 was due and owing on that invoice, and the applicant’s claim for relief from payment of the invoice for that amount was dismissed.[3]

[3]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 13(1).

On 22 July 2019, the applicant applied to the appellate tribunal for leave to appeal the decision of the tribunal below.[4] The application for leave included two pages of summary of the application, the facts, the law and the proposed grounds of appeal, and the material before the tribunal below.

[4]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 26, 142(1) and 142(3)(a)(i).

On 13 April 2022, the appeal tribunal decided to refuse leave to appeal. A decision was made on the papers by a judicial member.[5] The appeal tribunal gave a seven page written decision refusing leave to appeal.[6] The appeal tribunal concluded that the crucial…

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 Peter Pershouse v Kydren Holdings Pty Ltd 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: [2022] QCA 179
Decision Date: 19 SEPTEMBER 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns a consumer dispute where the applicant, Peter Pershouse, sought relief from an invoice for $2,541 issued by the respondent, Kydren Holdings Pty Ltd, for work done and materials supplied as an automotive mechanic. The dispute centred on whether the applicant owed the respondent for the work and materials. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) initially found that the applicant was liable for the invoice amount and dismissed his claims for relief. The applicant subsequently sought leave to appeal the QCAT's decision to the QCAT appellate tribunal, which was refused. Pershouse then applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal the appellate tribunal's decision.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicant had shown that leave to appeal to the appellate tribunal was necessary to correct a substantial injustice or there was a reasonable argument that there was an error of law to be corrected. The applicant argued that the appellate tribunal member failed to give proper reasons for refusing leave to appeal, and that the tribunal below should have tested the replacement engine more thoroughly before installation. The applicant also contended that the respondent's services were not fit for purpose because it lacked the necessary equipment.

The Court of Appeal found that the fundamental dispute was one of fact, and that the applicant's grounds for appeal did not give rise to an appeal on a question of law only. The Court emphasised that appeals from QCAT decisions are deliberately limited to questions of law only, and that the legislative intention is to favour the finality of QCAT decisions at first instance. The Court concluded that the applicant had not shown a substantial injustice or a reasonable argument for an error of law that would affect the final result. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

In summary, the Court of Appeal found that the applicant's application for leave to appeal was not supported by any substantial argument for an error of law that would affect the final result, and that the application should be dismissed. The Court emphasised that appeals from QCAT decisions are deliberately limited to questions of law only, and that the legislative intention is to favour the finality of QCAT decisions at first instance. The Court found that the applicant had not shown a substantial injustice or a reasonable argument for an error of law that would affect the final result.

Orders