Robinson Project Managers Pty Ltd v Cen-Tel Secure Pty Ltd - [2021] QCATA 39

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Robinson Project Managers Pty Ltd v Cen-Tel Secure Pty Ltd [2021] QCATA 39

PARTIES:

ROBINSON PROJECT MANAGERS PTY LTD

(applicant)

v

CEN-TEL SECURE PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL351-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO 60430/17

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

23 March 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Hughes

ORDERS:

1.     Leave to appeal refused.

2.     The Application to stay a decision filed on 19 December 2019 is dismissed.

3.     The Application for miscellaneous matters filed on 15 January 2020 is dismissed.

4.     The interim order made on 19 December 2019 suspending the operation of the order made in MCDO 60430/17 is lifted.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – CONTROL OVER PROCEEDINGS – OTHER CASES – where purpose of appeal is not to conduct a retrial on the merits of the case - where findings open on evidence – where no basis for allegations of bias – where applicant given opportunity to present case – where evidence capable of supporting findings – where leave to appeal refused

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 28, s 142

Armstrong v Kawana Island Retirement Village [2011] QCATA 324
Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1
Creek v Raine & Horne Real Estate Mossman [2011] QCATA 226
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
King v ASIC [2018] QCA 352
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Mataitini v North Shore Realty Sunshine Coast [2020] QCATA 154
Piric & Anor v Claudia Tiller Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 152
R v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal (1933) 50 CLR 228
Rayner & Anor v Trabme Pty Ltd t/as Elders Redcliffe [2013] QCATA 212
Slater v Wilkes [2012] QCATA 12
Terera & Anor v Clifford [2017] QCA 181

WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 236 FCR 593

APPEARANCES:

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
What is this appeal about?

An application for leave to appeal is not an occasion to re-try the case presented at trial, as if the latter were a ‘preliminary skirmish’.[1] Despite this, Robinson Project Managers Pty Ltd sought to dissect the transcript of the learned Adjudicator’s reasons (having not attended the delivery of those reasons) and reargue its case.
[1]Mataitini v North Shore Realty Sunshine Coast [2020] QCATA 154, [12] citing Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1, 7.
That is not the proper basis for an appeal. The learned Adjudicator’s reasons are not to be scrutinised ‘with an eye keenly attuned to error’.[2] The Tribunal must…

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 Robinson Project Managers Pty Ltd v Cen-Tel Secure Pty Ltd 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] QCATA 39
Decision Date: 23 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robinson Project Managers Pty Ltd sought to appeal a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) and to stay that decision pending the outcome of the appeal. Cen-Tel Secure Pty Ltd opposed the appeal and the stay application. The central issue for the Supreme Court was whether the QCAT decision was so flawed as to warrant interference on appeal. A secondary issue was whether the decision-maker was biased in favour of Cen-Tel. The Supreme Court held that the QCAT decision was open on the evidence. Robinson had the opportunity to present its case, but the Adjudicator found the evidence of its representative to be inherently contradictory. The Adjudicator was in the best position to assess credibility, and it was not an error to prefer one version of the facts over another. There was no evidence of bias on the part of the Adjudicator, and Robinson’s allegations were speculative. The Adjudicator’s conduct of the hearing was consistent with the statutory mandate of QCAT to conduct proceedings in an informal way that minimises costs to parties and is as quick as is consistent with achieving justice.

The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the stay and other applications. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that it was not an extraordinary case warranting the Court’s interference with the discretion of the QCAT. The Court found that the QCAT decision was open on the evidence and there was no error in the assessment of credibility or procedure. The Court also rejected the allegations of bias. The Court further held that the Adjudicator’s conduct of the hearing was consistent with the statutory mandate of QCAT.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal refused.

2. The Application to stay a decision filed on 19 December 2019 is dismissed.

3. The Application for miscellaneous matters filed on 15 January 2020 is dismissed.

4. The interim order made on 19 December 2019 suspending the operation of the order made in MCDO 60430/17 is lifted.

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

Conversely, the learned Adjudicator noted inherent contradictions in the evidence of the representative from Robinson confirmed in a witness statement.[17] This was sufficient for the learned Adjudicator to make a finding of “significant doubt” about the credit of Robinson’s representative as a witness.[18] Having heard the evidence of the representatives from both parties, the learned Adjudicator was in the best position to assess credibility. It is not an error to prefer one version of facts to another.[19] [17]Transcript dated 29 November 2019, page 1-6, lines 36 to 45[18]Transcript dated 29 November 2019, page 1-6, lines 45 to 46.[19]Slater v Wilkes [2012] QCATA 12, [6].Was the decision infected by bias? Robinson also made various allegations of bias and “collusion” between the learned Adjudicator and Cen-Tel’s representative. Robinson did not raise any concerns of bias with the learned Adjudicator at the actual hearing. Bias is a serious allegation. Allegations of bias require more than mere speculation. The threshold to prove bias is high:… if a fair-minded lay bystander might reasonably apprehend that the decision-maker might not bring an impartial mind to the determination of the issues that he or she must decide.[20] [20]Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337, 344-5 [6]. Robinson made much of the learned Adjudicator not initially allowing its expert to give evidence. Nothing turns on this. The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence[21] and, subject to procedural fairness,[22] may ask questions of parties and their witnesses as it sees fit. The learned Adjudicator simply adjourned the hearing to allow the experts from both parties to give evidence. [21]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28(3)(b).[22]Ibid, s 28(3)(a). Robinson also referred to the learned Adjudicator’s “wording and tone” when reading her reasons for decision into the record as “very negative” and “reflect her conduct throughout the entire process”. In doing so, Robinson has sought to scrutinise the learned Adjudicator’s conduct of the hearing to a level that is inconsistent with the Tribunal’s statutory mandate to conduct proceedings in an informal way that minimises costs to parties and is as quick as is consistent with achieving justice,[23] particularly in the busy and demanding minor civil disputes jurisdiction, where thousands of applications are processed and determined each year.[24] [23]Ibid, s 4(c).[24]Rayner & Anor v Trabme Pty Ltd t/as Elders Redcliffe [2013] QCATA 212, [46] (Wilson J). Minor civil dispute applications are conducted quickly and efficiently to meet the demands of this high-volume jurisdiction. The Tribunal’s resources for the resolution of disputes are in high demand and serve, as the High Court has recently observed in relation to court resources, ‘…the public as a whole, not merely the parties to the proceedings.’[25] [25]Creek v Raine & Horne Real Estate Mossman [2011] QCATA 226, [13] (Wilson J).

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Robinson Project Managers Pty Ltd v Cen-Tel Secure Pty Ltd [2021] QCATA 39
PARTIES:	ROBINSON PROJECT MANAGERS PTY LTD (applicant)
v
CEN-TEL SECURE PTY LTD (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL351-19
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	MCDO 60430/17
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	23 March 2021
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Hughes
ORDERS:	1. Leave to appeal refused. 2. The Application to stay a decision filed on 19 December 2019 is dismissed. 3. The Application for miscellaneous matters filed on 15 January 2020 is dismissed. 4. The interim order made on 19 December 2019 suspending the operation of the order made in MCDO 60430/17 is lifted.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – CONTROL OVER PROCEEDINGS – OTHER CASES – where purpose of appeal is not to conduct a retrial on the merits of the case - where findings open on evidence – where no basis for allegations of bias – where applicant given opportunity to present case – where evidence capable of supporting findings – where leave to appeal refused Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 28, s 142 Armstrong v Kawana Island Retirement Village [2011] QCATA 324 Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1 Creek v Raine & Horne Real Estate Mossman [2011] QCATA 226 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 King v ASIC [2018] QCA 352 Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 Mataitini v North Shore Realty Sunshine Coast [2020] QCATA 154 Piric & Anor v Claudia Tiller Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 152 R v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal (1933) 50 CLR 228 Rayner & Anor v Trabme Pty Ltd t/as Elders Redcliffe [2013] QCATA 212 Slater v Wilkes [2012] QCATA 12 Terera & Anor v Clifford [2017] QCA 181 WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 236 FCR 593
APPEARANCES:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).