Q Pro Realty v Smith - [2020] QCATA 114

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Q Pro Realty v Smith [2020] QCATA 114

PARTIES:

Q PRO REALTY

(appellant)

v

SIMONE JANE SMITH

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL278-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT036/19

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

12 August 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Hughes

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – interference with findings of Tribunal below – functions of appellate tribunal – where no valid ground of appeal raised – where findings open on evidence – where no reasonably arguable case of Tribunal in error – where no reasonable prospect of substantive relief on appeal

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 4

Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39
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
Piric & Anor v Claudia Tillier Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 152
QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41

REPRESENTATION:

Applicants:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

APPEARANCES:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

An Adjudicator ordered Q Pro Realty pay $1,600.00 to Simone Smith for loss of amenity from a leaky and unclean pool.
Q Pro Realty has applied for leave to appeal that decision.
In determining whether to grant leave, the Tribunal will consider established principles including:
(a)whether there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision;[1]
(b)whether there is a reasonable prospect that the appellant will obtain substantive relief;[2]
(c)whether leave is needed to correct a substantial injustice caused by some error;[3] and
(d)whether there is a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage.[4]
[1]QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[2]Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232, 2.
[3]QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[4]Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388, 389; McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577, 577, 580.
Q Pro Realty appealed on the basis that the learned Adjudicator did not make a determination on Ms Smith’s claim for compensation for pool chemicals and refund of water invoices.
The appeal process is not an opportunity for a party to again present their case.[5] It is the means to correct an error by the Tribunal that decided the proceeding.[6] The minor civil disputes jurisdiction requires the Tribunal to deal with matters fairly, quickly and economically.[7]
[5]Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39, [9].
[6]Ibid.
[7]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld),…

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 Q Pro Realty v Smith 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: [2020] QCATA 114
Decision Date: 12 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Q Pro Realty v Smith involved an appeal against a decision made by a Tribunal. Q Pro Realty was the appellant, challenging the decision of the Tribunal, with Smith as the respondent. The Tribunal had ruled in favour of Smith, and Q Pro Realty sought to appeal this decision, arguing that there were errors in the Tribunal's findings. The appeal was heard in the relevant appellate court, where the primary focus was on whether the grounds for appeal were valid and if the Tribunal's findings were open to question.

The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the appeal had valid grounds and if the Tribunal's findings were open to question on the evidence presented. The court needed to determine if there was any reasonably arguable case that the Tribunal had erred in its decision-making process. Furthermore, the court examined if there was any reasonable prospect of obtaining substantive relief through the appeal.

In delivering its decision, the court found that no valid ground for appeal had been established. The findings of the Tribunal were deemed open to scrutiny based on the evidence, but the court concluded that there was no reasonably arguable case that the Tribunal had erred in its decision. Additionally, the court assessed that there was no reasonable prospect of obtaining substantive relief through the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

The final orders of the court were to refuse leave to appeal, affirming the decision of the Tribunal. This decision highlights the stringent requirements for an appeal to be successful, particularly in cases where the findings of a Tribunal are to be reviewed.

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.

CITATION:	Q Pro Realty v Smith [2020] QCATA 114
PARTIES:	Q PRO REALTY (appellant)
v
SIMONE JANE SMITH (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL278-19
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	MCDT036/19
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	12 August 2020
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Hughes
ORDERS:	Leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – interference with findings of Tribunal below – functions of appellate tribunal – where no valid ground of appeal raised – where findings open on evidence – where no reasonably arguable case of Tribunal in error – where no reasonable prospect of substantive relief on appeal Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 4 Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39 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 Piric & Anor v Claudia Tillier Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 152 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41
REPRESENTATION:
Applicants:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).