| CITATION: | Pirrone-Cook v Claudia Tiller Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 127 |
| PARTIES: | Mrs Carli Pirrone-Cook and Mr Daniel Pirrone-Cook |
| v | |
| Claudia Tiller Holdings Pty Ltd trading as Luxury Gold Coast Pools |
APPLICATION NUMBER: APL319-10
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
HEARING DATE: On the papers
HEARD AT: Brisbane
| DECISION OF: | Kerrie O’Callaghan, Senior Member Peta Stilgoe, Member |
DELIVERED ON: 23 May 2011
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE: Leave to appeal refused.
| CATCHWORDS: | MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – whether leave to appeal should be granted |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Ms O’Callaghan
In this matter the Appeal Tribunal consisted of Ms Stilgoe, QCAT Member and me. I have had the benefit of reading her reasons in draft. I agree with her reasons, and her conclusions, and the order she proposes.
Ms Stilgoe
Luxury Gold Coast Pools constructed a swimming pool for Mr and Mrs Pirrone-Cook. It is common ground that Mr and Mrs Pirrone-Cook did not pay the last two instalments due to Luxury under the contract. Luxury brought proceedings claiming payment of those instalments plus interest at 15%, the rate nominated in the contract. Luxury was wholly successful.
Mr and Mrs Pirrone-Cook have appealed that decision. They say:
a) The decision is unfair due to the evidence they provided.
b) They cannot afford to pay the amount of the decision.
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 a reasonable prospect that 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?
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.[1]
[1]Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 at 561; Fox v Percy (2003) 197 ALR 201 at 207, 208.
I have read the transcript and the learned Adjudicator’s reasons for decision. The learned Adjudicator considered the evidence in this proceeding carefully. She allowed Mr and Mrs Pirrone-Cook additional time after the hearing to submit further evidence. They did not do so.
The learned Adjudicator gave a written decision which sets out the reasons why she preferred the evidence of Luxury over the evidence of Mr and Mrs Pirrone-Cook. I find that her conclusion is capable of being supported by the evidence and there is no reason to disturb her findings of fact.
I understand the disappointment of Mr and Mrs Pirrone-Cook. That, in itself, is not a reason to grant leave to appeal. There is no question of general importance to be decided by the tribunal; there is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Adjudicator was in error and there is no reasonable prospect that Mr and Mrs Pirrone-Cook would obtain further substantive relief on appeal.
That Mr and Mrs Pirrone-Cook may not be able to afford to pay the amount ordered is unfortunate, but it is not a substantial injustice. In Tyler v Queensland Building Services Authority[2] the appellant argued that, if leave was not given, he would be required to complete work for which he had not been paid. Judge Ryrie did not consider that this amounted to “substantial injustice”. Similarly in Bucknell v Robins[3] the Court of Appeal was of the view that financial disadvantage, in the absence of hardship did not amount to “substantial injustice”. Mr and Mrs Pirrone-Cook are in no different position.
[2] [2010] QDC 40.
[3] [2008] QCA 214.
Leave to appeal should be refused.
- AGLC
- Pirrone-Cook v Claudia Tiller Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 127
- Case
- [2011] QCATA 127
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue the court needed to address was whether the Supreme Court should grant leave to appeal against the decision of the Local Court. The court was required to determine whether there was an arguable error of law in the Local Court's decision that would warrant the grant of leave to appeal. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the appeal had prospects of success and whether it was in the interests of justice to allow the appeal to proceed.
In delivering the judgment, the Supreme Court held that there was no arguable error of law in the Local Court's decision. The court found that the Local Court had properly applied the relevant statutory provisions and had correctly interpreted the evidence before it. Furthermore, the court held that the appeal did not have prospects of success and that it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal. The Supreme Court therefore refused to grant leave to appeal, upholding the decision of the Local Court.
As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the Local Court remained in place. The plaintiff, Pirrone-Cook, was not granted leave to appeal the decision, and the defendant, Claudia Tiller Holdings Pty Ltd, was not required to address an appeal on the merits. The case serves as a reminder of the stringent criteria that must be met for an appeal to be granted in minor civil disputes under the relevant legislation.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal 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.