Ryan v Enterprise Above & Beyond
[2012] QCATA 179
•12 September 2012
| CITATION: | Ryan v Enterprise Above & Beyond [2012] QCATA 179 |
| PARTIES: | Dennis Anthony Ryan (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| Enterprise Above & Beyond (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL224-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Richard Oliver, Senior Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 12 September 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | Leave to appeal refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Minor Civil Dispute – where applicant did not attend the hearing – where decision made on the evidence before the Tribunal |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
In April 2011 the Respondent ordered, and received, stock from the Applicant, which he sold in his business. The Respondent has since sold the business without paying the Applicant for the stock. The stock was listed in the stock take that was done prior to the shop being closed and therefore the responsibility of the Respondent. Because the debt was not paid Mr Nugent, the principal of the respondent, commenced a proceeding in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction claiming $1,187.34 from Mr Ryan.
Mr Ryan filed a response stating that the debt was not incurred by him but his trading entity, Picanews Pty Ltd trading as Glenmore News.
The matter came on for hearing on 18 June 2012. Mr Ryan did not attend nor did he produce any evidence to support the contentions in the defence. The learned Member heard from Mr Nugent and was satisfied that Mr Ryan had incurred the debt and ordered him to pay to the Applicant, the amount of $1,317.34 on, or before 2 July 2012.
From that decision Mr Ryan has filed an application for leave to appeal. The grounds of appeal are similar to those contained in the response to the minor civil dispute proceeding.
a)That the Respondent did not incur the debt.
b)That the Applicant does not have standing since he does not trade as Glenmore News. Glenmore News is controlled by Picanews Pty Ltd and the Respondent claims that the debt is the responsibility of Picanews Pty Ltd.
Leave to appeal is necessary as this is an appeal from the minor civil disputes jurisdiction.[1] Leave to appeal is ordinarily granted in accordance with the following principles: whether there is a reasonably arguable case of error;[2] whether the applicant has reasonable prospects at obtaining substantive relief;[3] whether leave is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by some error[4]; whether the matter is of general importance of which further argument and a decision of the appellate court or tribunal, would be to the public advantage.[5]
[1] QCAT Act, s 142(3).
[2] QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[3] Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 at 2.
[4] QUYD Pty v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[5]Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 at 389; McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577 at 578, 580.
In the minor civil dispute hearing the learned Member took evidence from Mr Nugent about the transaction and satisfied himself, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that Mr Ryan was responsible for the debt. That conclusion was open on the evidence before him. Mr Ryan relies on a Business Name Certificate (attached to his application for leave to appeal) but, as Mr Nugent points, that business name had expired by the time the debt was incurred. The extract from the Australian Investment and Securities Commission does nothing more that say that Pica held the business name Glenmore News as at 14 August 2012. In any event this is new evidence that should have been adduced at the original hearing.
The learned Member made a decision on the evidence that was before him at the hearing. The applicant has not been able to identify any error on his part nor is any apparent.
For these reasons leave to appeal is refused.
0