Rae v Qantas Airways Limited - [2021] QCAT 376

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Rae v Qantas Airways Limited [2021] QCAT 376

PARTIES:

DARRYL RAE

(applicant)

v

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MCD/Q01070/19

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

4 January 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Lember

ORDERS:

1.   Application by applicant for a notice to produce is refused on the grounds that it lacks relevance, is too broad and is not directed to the respondent.

2.   By 4:00pm 11 January 2021, each party to make submissions as to why the Tribunal should not dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction as the claim appears to be a damages claim.

3.   Each party otherwise to file by email and to serve the other party all material and evidence upon which they wish to rely by 4:00pm 13 January 2021.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – minor civil dispute – consumer dispute – where notice to produce issued to third party – where claim appears to be for property damage – where directions made to parties to make submissions on jurisdiction prior to hearing

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2
s 60, s 61, s 62, s 267(4)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 3(b), s 4(b), s 4(c), s 11, s 13, s 23(3)(c), s 32(2),
s 62(1), s 63, s 95(1), s 95(2), s 97(1), s 98, s 114, s 122, Schedule 3

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld) s 78

Australian Property Custodian Holdings Ltd (in liq) (recs and mgrs apptd) (controllers appointed) v Woolridge [2013] VSC 154

Creek v Raine & Horne Real Estate Mossman [2011] QCATA 226

Hatton v Attorney-General (Cth) & Ors [2000] FamCA 892

Langan & Langan [2013] FCCA 258

Martin & Anor v Chadia Chalmers Pty Ltd [2020] QCATA 164

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

Background

By an application for minor civil dispute – consumer dispute filed 27 June 2019 the applicant sought orders from the Tribunal that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $24,500 within seven days of the date of the Order, for repairs to the applicant’s Rolex watch and band that the applicant says were damaged by the respondent’s staff on 5 November 2018.
An interlocutory decision was made on 4 January 2021 to refuse an application by the applicant for a notice requiring the production of documents and things, and at the same time, directions were given to the parties.
The applicant has requested reasons for that decision[1] and they are set out below.
[1]Section 122 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

Nature of the dispute

On 5 November 2018 the applicant and his spouse were booked to fly to Sydney on a service operated by the respondent from Brisbane…

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 Rae v Qantas Airways Limited 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: [2021] QCAT 376
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the applicant, Darryl Rae, filed an application against the respondent, Qantas Airways Limited, seeking compensation for damages to his Rolex watch and band. The applicant alleges that his watch was damaged by the respondent’s staff during an incident on 5 November 2018 and is seeking $24,500 in compensation. The respondent denies the applicant's claims, stating that he has not provided any evidence to substantiate his allegations or the quantum of his claim. The Tribunal was required to decide whether to grant the applicant's request for a notice to produce documents and things, and whether it had jurisdiction to hear the application.

The court found that the notice to produce was not relevant, was too broad, and was not directed to the respondent. The court also considered that the claim appeared to be a damages claim for property damage, which was outside the minor civil dispute jurisdiction. The court made directions to the parties to make submissions on the question of jurisdiction, and to file and serve material and evidence upon which they wish to rely. The orders made by the court were that the application for a notice to produce is refused, and that the parties are to make submissions on jurisdiction and file and serve material and evidence by specified dates.

The court's decision was based on the Tribunal's mandate to deal with matters in an accessible, fair, just, economical, informal, and quick manner, and to encourage the early and economical resolution of disputes. The court found that the notice to produce was not relevant, was too broad, and was not directed to the respondent. The court also found that the claim appeared to be a damages claim for property damage, which was outside the minor civil dispute jurisdiction. The court made directions to the parties to prepare for the issue of jurisdiction, and to file and serve material and evidence by specified dates. The court's decision was made on the papers, and the parties were given an opportunity to make submissions on the question of jurisdiction.

Orders