Q-Cool Pty Ltd v Morrison

[2018] QCATA 181

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Q-Cool Pty Ltd v Morrison [2018] QCATA 181

PARTIES:

Q-COOL PTY LTD
(appellant)

v

MICHAEL MORRISON

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL218-18

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO48-18 (Beenleigh)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

26 November 2018

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – where an application for minor civil dispute was heard by an adjudicator – where appearances were entered for both applicant and respondent – where evidence was handed up by the representative of the corporate respondent – where decision given in favour of the applicant – where appeal seeks another hearing without identifying error on the part of the Tribunal

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented by Habib Habchi

Respondent:

Self-represented by Michael Morrison

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr Morrison contracted with the respondent company to do some design work on a part-time basis. His invoices to the company were paid save for his last invoice in which he claimed $1,250.

2. He sued in the tribunal for that money and claimed his filing fee and interest on the amount due.

3. The matter was heard in the Tribunal before an Adjudicator at the Beenleigh Magistrate’s Court. Mr Morrison appeared on his own behalf. Mr Beaver appeared in the matter and said he was a contractor to the respondent company.

4. The learned Adjudicator proceeded to hear the matter and gave judgement for

   
   

   Mr Morrison for the full amount of his claim together with his claim for the filing fee and interest.

5. The respondent company has filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal that decision.

6. Given this is an appeal from a decision made in the Tribunal’s Minor Civil Dispute jurisdiction, leave to appeal must first be obtained before any appeal proceeds.[1]

   [1]QCAT Act, s 142(3)(a)(i).

7. Leave to appeal will usually only be granted where an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the appellant and where there is a reasonable argument that there is an error to be corrected.[2]

   [2]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294, [3].

8. The grounds upon which the company appeal the decision below are far from clear. In the application for leave to appeal the following is stated:

   I was not represented correctly due to special circumstance I could not attend to be present. I contacted the court prior and sent Greg to give documents relating. I do not believe this was presented to Judge (sic) correctly.

9. Following that, in that part of the application for leave to appeal where the appellant is asked to set out the orders being sought the following appears:

   To appear again to present and explain correctly to Judge to make proper understanding to enable fair understanding.

10. The application for leave to appeal or appeal appears to have been filed on behalf of the company by Mr Habchi. He swore an affidavit of service of the application for leave to appeal on Mr Morrison.

11. Perusal of the original tribunal file in the matter from Beenleigh Magistrates Court fails to disclose any notice given to the registry staff before or after the hearing by Mr Habchi concerning an appearance on behalf of the company. At the hearing however reference was made to a Mr North making contact on behalf of the company as set out below.

12. The hearing commenced before the learned Adjudicator at 2:05 PM on 4 June 2018. The matter of Morrison v Q-Cool Pty Ltd was called on by the Adjudicator who asked the people standing at the bar table to identify themselves from left to right and to say for whom they appeared. Mr Beaver said his name and the Adjudicator asked what his relationship to the matter was. The exchange then went as follows:

    Mr Beaver: That is what I wanted to discuss. I am a contractor to the company and I do not see any reason why I’m a respondent.

    Adjudicator Le Mass: Right.

    Mr Beaver: I have no formal role in the company.

    Adjudicator Le Mass: I see. I think Mr North may have called here this morning and said that you would represent the company. He talked to you about that?

    Mr Beaver: No.

    Adjudicator Le Mass: I see. Okay. All right. Sir, full name.

    Mr Morrison: Michael Charles Morrison.

    Adjudicator Le Mass: Okay. Yes.

    …

    Mr Beaver: So, your Honour, I was asked to drop in some – an email and some plans and drawings.

    Adjudicator Le Mass: Is that by Q-Cool Pty Ltd?

    Mr Beaver: Yeah

    Adjudicator Le Mass: So you do know them. You know, you…

    Mr Beaver: I know them. As I said, I contract with them.

    Adjudicator Le Mass: Okay. All right, do you know about this matter?

    Mr Beaver: Yeah, I know about it, yeah.

    Adjudicator Le Mass: Well, you might have to help me. Right, Mr Morrison, you tell me what this is all about, please.[3]

    [3]Transcript 1-2, Lines 7-47; Transcript 1-3, Lines 1-12.

13. Mr Morrison proceeded to explain his case. After that was done the learned adjudicator asked Mr Beaver what he knew about the matter. Mr Beaver noted that the contract with Mr Morrison was for drawing work and he went on to say:

    That is correct. The contract was to – it did mention to do some drawings. The argument is that the drawings were incorrect, they were sent to the factory, and had to be redone.[4]

    [4]T1-5, L9-11.

14. The learned Adjudicator asked why the work had to be redone and Mr Beaver said he did not know why but the drawings were not right. He said he had no idea why. The learned adjudicator went on to consider the material handed up by Mr Beaver. Mr Beaver said the email handed up was from ‘the factory’ and showed the drawings as they should have been done.

15. Mr Morrison maintained that the drawings he had done were correct. He disputed that he had done anything wrong and disputed that he was ever challenged at the time about the work he had done. He asked them why he was not being paid but he was never given a response.

16. Mr Beaver was asked if there was anything further he wanted to say and he said there was nothing more.

17. The learned adjudicator accepted Mr Morrison’s evidence and found in his favour for the full amount of his claim plus filing fee and interest.

18. The email Mr Beaver handed up at the hearing had been forwarded to him approximately 1 hour before the hearing. It had attached drawings. It is clear that Mr Beaver was instructed to attend the hearing and hand up the drawings on behalf of the respondent company.

19. What is really sought by the appellant here is another hearing with, potentially, hopefully, a better outcome for the company.

20. There is no reasonable ground of appeal made out. There is no reopening ground made out. Mr Beaver was clearly attending the hearing to represent the interests of the company. Evidence was led. It was not accepted. It is not a ground of appeal that if allowed to have another hearing a party might do better in presenting its case.

21. There is no explanation why Mr Habchi, if he was the more appropriate party to appear and represent the company, did not do so. There is no explanation about the ‘special circumstances’ claimed to have prevented Mr Habchi from attending the hearing.

22. The learned Adjudicator did nothing wrong in proceeding with the hearing and he was entitled to conclude as he did in favour of Mr Morrison. The application for leave to appeal is refused.