Roache v Merzaie

[2023] QCATA 13

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Roache v Merzaie [2023] QCATA 13

PARTIES:

SEBASTIAN ROACHE

(applicant)

v

SAYED REZA MERZAIE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL299-21

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO1263-20

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

21 February 2023

HEARING DATE:

7 February 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lumb

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – leave to appeal – minor civil dispute – whether reasonable argument that decision was attended by error

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142

Berry v Treasure & Anor [2021] QCATA 61

Saxer v Hume [2022] QCATA 25

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. By an Application for leave to appeal or appeal filed on 8 November 2021 (the Appeal Application), the Applicant (Mr Roache) seeks leave to appeal, and to appeal, a decision made by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 22 October 2021 (the Decision).

2. The Decision was made in a proceeding commenced by the Respondent to this application (Mr Merzaie) by an Application for minor civil dispute – minor debt filed on 20 October 2020 (the MCD Application). Mr Merzaie’s claim was for moneys owing to him for work performed as a tiler at an agreed hourly rate.

3. The hearing of the MCD Application proceeded on 22 October 2021.

4. By the Decision, the Tribunal (constituted by an Adjudicator) ordered that Mr Roache pay Mr Merzaie $9,207.00 (being the amount of the claim) and $125.40 for the filing fee, within 28 days.

The Reasons

1. The Adjudicator’s Reasons, as recorded in the Transcript of the hearing, relevantly stated:[1]

   … Mr Merzaie conducted a business with his ABN number, did have tools that he used and had regularly worked as a tiler.  He has produced a series of invoices detailing the extent of the work that he has carried out as an agreed hourly rate.  That claim was inclusive of GST.  The totality of the amount is $9207.  Mr Roache contests that the work or at least some of the work was improperly carried out.  But in his response to the claim, he merely says that those costs would be more than what the claim is worth.

   Regrettably, I’m not able to accept his evidence on that basis, as – if there were complaints or costs of an amount equivalent or more than $9207, it would be expected that he would have records of complaints made to him or remedial costs incurred in attending to those repairs.  Part of Mr Roache’s complaint, that there were unsigned timesheets, but Mr Roache also accepts that Mr Merzaie was meticulous in his recordings of hours worked.  In the circumstances, I’m satisfied that Mr Merzaie has established that he did the work as a contractor and that there has been no satisfactory evidence of his non-entitlement to his invoices.  Should it be the case that Mr Roache has that evidence, then he would be at liberty to bring that claim forward. However,…