Rees v Mighty Enterprises Pty Ltd & Ors - [2015] QCAT 312

CITATION:

Rees v Mighty Enterprises Pty Ltd & Ors [2015] QCAT 312

PARTIES:	Stephen Rees (Applicant)
v
Mighty Enterprises Pty Ltd (First Respondent) Graham Douglas Philp (Second Respondent) Pam Philp (Third Respondent) Lance Gregory Royston (Fifth Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAR170-14

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

3 June 2015

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lumb

DELIVERED ON:

7 August 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The Applicant’s claim against the claim fund is rejected.

2. The parties shall bear their own costs of the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

LICENSEE – CLAIM AGAINST THE CLAIM FUND – BUYER OF VEHICLE – whether false or misleading representation – reliance – whether buyer had proved financial loss

Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld), s 469, s 470, s 472, s 473, s 488, s 574
Agents Financial Administration Act 2014 (Qld), s 78, s 82, s 105, s 106, s 116, s 155
Criminal CodeAct 1899 (Qld), s 24
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 100

London & Anor v Reynolds [2006] QDC 380
Gurdag v Stillwell Ford Pty Ltd (1985) 61 ALR 689

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

Stephen Rees

RESPONDENTS:

No appearance

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 3 October 2013, the applicant/claimant (‘Mr Rees’) made a claim against the claim fund (‘the Claim’) pursuant to the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘PAMDA’). By the Claim, Mr Rees claims loss resulting from his purchase of a 2009 Mazda CX-7 Luxury Sports motor vehicle (‘the Vehicle’).
The Chief Executive accepts, and the respondents have not disputed, that the Claim complied with the requirements of s 473 of PAMDA and the Claim was lodged within the timeframe required by s 472(1) of PAMDA. I find that these requirements have been satisfied.
On 17 February 2014, Mr Rees gave the Chief Executive written notice that he wanted to proceed with the Claim (and the Chief Executive did not direct an investigation into the Claim).[1] The matter was referred to the Tribunal for determination pursuant to s 488 of PAMDA.
[1]See the letter from the Manager, Claims and Recoveries, Department of Justice and Attorney General to the Registrar of QCAT dated 15 May 2014.

Mr Rees’ case

Mr Rees’ version of events is set out in a signed statement dated 4 July 2013 the relevant parts of which are as follows.
On or about 24 February 2012, Mr Rees noticed the Vehicle in the forecourt of the ‘Wheels That Work’ car yard on the corner of Ferry Road and Winchester Street, Southport at the Gold Coast.
The ‘Spec’ sheet on the front windscreen of the Vehicle stated that the Vehicle had an odometer reading of about 26,000 km and was still covered under a new car factory warranty for approximately nine months.
Mr Rees approached a salesperson who identified himself as Lance Royston (‘Mr Royston’) (who is the Fifth Respondent in this matter). Mr Royston informed Mr Rees that the Vehicle was previously owned by…

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 Rees v Mighty Enterprises Pty Ltd & Ors

Details

AGLC: Rees v Mighty Enterprises Pty Ltd & Ors [2015] QCAT 312
Case: [2015] QCAT 312
Decision Date: 7 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rees brought an application against Mighty Enterprises and others, seeking compensation from the claim fund for alleged false or misleading representations made in the sale of a vehicle. The dispute was heard and determined by the court. The central legal issue was whether the applicant had successfully demonstrated that the representations made were false or misleading and that this led to financial loss for the applicant. The court needed to examine the evidence presented to determine the veracity of the claims and assess whether the applicant had indeed suffered a financial loss as a result of the alleged misrepresentations.

The court carefully reviewed the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the representations were false or misleading. Additionally, the court concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate a causal link between the alleged misrepresentations and any financial loss suffered. The court held that, in the absence of proof of both the falsity of the representations and a resulting financial loss, the applicant's claim against the claim fund could not be substantiated.

Consequently, the court rejected the applicant's claim against the claim fund. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs of the proceeding. This decision underscores the importance of clear and sufficient evidence in establishing claims against a statutory claim fund and highlights the need for claimants to demonstrate both the existence of misleading representations and the consequent financial loss.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Applicant’s claim against the claim fund is rejected.

2. The parties shall bear their own costs of the proceeding.

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.