Rayan v Almassi - [2022] QCATA 57

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Rayan v Almassi [2022] QCATA 057

PARTIES:

ELLIJAH ISAAC RAYAN

(appellant)

v

AARASH ALMASSI

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL015-21

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO43/20 (Redcliffe)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

4 May 2022

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Gordon

ORDERS:

1.     The record of the Appeal Tribunal is to show the name of the appellant as Ellijah Isaac Rayan.

2.     The application to put additional evidence before the Appeal Tribunal is refused.

3.     Leave to appeal is refused. This means the appeal fails.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN NO APPEAL LIES – where the appellant seeks to admit additional evidence obtained following the hearing – whether it should be admitted – whether appeal could succeed on various grounds of appeal

Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd v Lal [2022] QCATA 50

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

This is an appeal brought by Ellijah Isaac Rayan in which he wishes to rely on new information discovered after the original hearing.
He claimed a total of $6,541 from Aarash Almassi trading as Almassi Light and Heavy Mechanical, for allegedly defective repair work on his two vehicles, a VW Beetle and a VW Kombi. Mr Almassi denied the claim but did concede that a used engine which he had sourced from a third party and supplied to Mr Rayan at $1,600 had been faulty. Having heard the claim on 30 November 2020, a tribunal Adjudicator decided that there were no defects in the repair work except for the conceded matter and ordered Mr Almassi to repay the $1,600 to Mr Rayan.
On 14 December 2020 the Adjudicator gave this decision with full written reasons in an unpublished form.
In this appeal,[1] Mr Rayan says that the award of $1,600 was ‘manifestly inadequate’. He says that there were a ‘violation of a number of sections of the Australian Consumer Law’ although he did not specify the sections referred or the way in which they had been violated. It was said that the Adjudicator failed to examine all the documentation presented and that the Adjudicator should not have believed Mr Almassi. It is also said that the Adjudicator said in the hearing that he would be awarded his towing fees and his filing fee but this was not done in the final decision.
[1]Application for leave to appeal or appeal dated 12 January 2021.

Application to admit additional evidence

Mr Rayan applied on 5 May 2021 to rely in the appeal on additional evidence in the form of an invoice from a Volkswagen dealer dated 8 March 2021, which document was created after the hearing of this matter. The invoice is for work done on the VW Kombi by a Volkswagen dealer, in which someone has added under ‘Comments’ that the carburettor needs ‘repair/replacement’.
Mr…

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 Rayan v Almassi

Details

AGLC: Rayan v Almassi [2022] QCATA 57
Case: [2022] QCATA 57
Decision Date: 4 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rayan v Almassi is a case that involves the appellant, Ellijah Isaac Rayan, and the respondent, Almassi. The dispute originated from a decision made by the Appeal Tribunal, which was not in favour of the appellant. Rayan sought to appeal against this decision and also wished to submit additional evidence that had been obtained post the initial hearing. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The primary issues for the court to decide were whether the additional evidence should be admitted and if the appeal could succeed on the various grounds presented by the appellant.

The court began by addressing the question of whether the additional evidence should be admitted. The court found that the evidence was not admissible as it was obtained after the original hearing and could potentially prejudice the outcome of the appeal. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the appeal process and ensuring that the tribunal's decision was based on the evidence available at the time of the original hearing. The court then proceeded to consider the grounds of appeal presented by the appellant. The court found that the appeal did not succeed on any of the grounds presented, as the appellant had not demonstrated any errors of law or fact that would warrant a different outcome.

The court concluded by refusing the application to admit additional evidence and also denying leave to appeal. As a result, the appeal was unsuccessful. The court's decision highlights the importance of adhering to the rules and procedures governing appeals and the need for appellants to provide compelling grounds for an appeal to succeed. The court's decision also serves as a reminder that the admission of additional evidence after the original hearing is generally not permissible unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify such an action.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The record of the Appeal Tribunal is to show the name of the appellant as Ellijah Isaac Rayan.

2. The application to put additional evidence before the Appeal Tribunal is refused.

3. Leave to appeal is refused. This means the appeal fails.

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.