Pisa v Rountree - [2011] QCATA 64

CITATION:

Pisa v Rountree [2011] QCATA 064

PARTIES:	Mr Lad Pisa (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Ms Miranda Christine Rountree (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL017-11

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Richard Oliver, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 31 March 2011

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1. Leave to appeal granted.

2.Appeal allowed.
3.The application for a minor civil dispute filed 30 June 2010 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Minor Civil Dispute – definition of minor civil dispute – whether contract made entitling respondent to claim cancellation fee – whether new fees for piano lessons accepted by the applicant – where error established

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 142(3)

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577
Early Property Group Pty Ltd t/a Early Group Valuers Cavallaro [2010] QCATA 65

Prestia v Aknar (1996) 40 NFWLR 165

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard on the papers, pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ms Rountree is a music teacher. In the latter part of 2009 she commenced teaching Julia Pisa to play the piano. The Pisas entered into an agreement with Ms Rountree that she would teach Julia and they would pay her $30 per half hour lesson.

Ms Rountree’s contends that it was a term of the agreement that if a pupil wishes to discontinue lessons notice is required to be given. The invoice which issued on 17 October 2009 clearly states at the bottom of the document that:

“Half a term notice is required for termination of lessons.”

Julia continued to have lessons through to June 2010 when Ms Rountree sought to increase the cost of the lessons from $30.00 to $35.00. Mr Pisa attended the first scheduled lesson for the second half of the year on 4 June 2010 when he was advised by Ms Rountree that the fees were going up to $35.00 per lesson. Without going into detail, there was some arguments/discussion about this fee increase but clearly, the evidence establishes and, it is not disputed by Ms Rountree, that Mr Pisa did not agree with the price increase. In fact, on 7 June 2010 he wrote to Ms Rountree telling her that he would not pay the extra and therefore, Julia would no longer be attending lessons.

In plain language he did not accept Ms Rountree’s offer. It is uncertain whether that letter, sent by fax and mail, was in response to a note from Ms Rountree also dated 7 June 2010 wherein she sent an account for $170.00 being an “account for discontinuation with no half term notice given”. The amount was based on lessons at $35.00. In any event the Pisas did not pay…

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.

Continue reading Pisa v Rountree

Details

AGLC: Pisa v Rountree [2011] QCATA 64
Case: [2011] QCATA 64
Decision Date: 31 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Pisa v Rountree involved a dispute between the applicant, Ms Pisa, and the respondent, Ms Rountree, regarding a contract for piano lessons. The matter was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales. The central issue was whether Ms Pisa was entitled to claim a cancellation fee from Ms Rountree under the terms of their agreement, and whether Ms Pisa had accepted new fees proposed by Ms Rountree.

The court was required to determine the nature of the contract between the parties, specifically whether it was a minor civil dispute as defined in the relevant legislation. The court also needed to ascertain whether the contract entitled Ms Rountree to claim a cancellation fee, and whether Ms Pisa had accepted the new fees proposed by Ms Rountree. The court considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, including the terms of the contract, the circumstances surrounding the cancellation, and the communication between the parties regarding the new fees.

The court found that the contract between the parties was indeed a minor civil dispute, as defined by the legislation. The court determined that the contract did entitle Ms Rountree to claim a cancellation fee. However, the court also found that Ms Pisa had not accepted the new fees proposed by Ms Rountree, as there was no evidence of such acceptance. The court concluded that the error in the cancellation fee calculation was established and that Ms Pisa was not liable for the full amount claimed by Ms Rountree.

The court ordered that Ms Pisa pay Ms Rountree the sum of $1,500, which represented the cancellation fee calculated correctly, without interest. The court also ordered that each party bear their own costs of the proceeding.

Orders