Ray v Hope

[2013] QCA 206

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ray v Hope & Anor [2013] QCA 206

PARTIES:

DARREN JOHN HOWARD RAY
(applicant)
v
BELINDA JANE HOPE
(first respondent)
RHONDA HOPE
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 1807 of 2013
QCAT No 199 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act

ORIGINATING COURT:

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 July 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 July 2013

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Holmes and Muir JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   The application to adduce further evidence is refused.

2.   The application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – ADMISSION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE – IN GENERAL – where the applicant unsuccessfully brought a claim in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) for a minor debt against the first and second respondents – where a tribunal member in the appeal division of QCAT upheld the adjudicator's findings against the applicant – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal to this Court arguing error in the non-admission of the recording of a phone conversation and the affidavits of two witnesses – where the applicant further argued that the adjudicator and the tribunal member had applied a presumption that because there was a relationship between the parties no contractual intention should be inferred – where the QCAT adjudicator ruled the recording of the phone conversation inadmissible as illegally obtained and instead allowed the applicant to give evidence of the conversation – where the applicant seeks leave to adduce a transcript of the telephone call and of a further telephone conversation not put before the adjudicator below – where the witness evidence was not in fact refused, but rightly characterised by the tribunal member as "largely irrelevant" – whether admission of the telephone evidence would have had any practical effect on the proceeding – whether the applicant's arguments had any substance – whether the proportions of the subject matter of the proposed appeal warranted a grant of leave to appeal

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 150
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), s 6, s 7, s 77

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
The first respondent appeared on her own behalf
No appearance for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
The first respondent appeared on her own behalf
No appearance for the second respondent

1. MARGARET McMURDO P:  I agree with Holmes JA's reasons for refusing the application to adduce further evidence and the application for leave to appeal.

1. HOLMES JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal a decision of a member of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) refusing leave to appeal an adjudicator’s order. Section 150 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 permits the appeal to this court only…