Saffigna v Little

Case [2022] QCATA 161


QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Saffigna v Little  [2022] QCATA 161

PARTIES: peter mitchell saffigna

(applicant/appellant)

v

adam little

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL018-21

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO10745-19

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

26 October 2022

HEARING DATE:

25 October 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Richard Oliver

ORDERS:

Application for leave to appeal is refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – FINDINGS OF FACT – where applicant and respondent involved in a motor vehicle collision between the respondent’s motorbike and the applicant’s small pantech truck – where fact of a collision in dispute – where applicant challenges findings of fact made by the tribunal  – where  lack of evidence of damage to the truck – where applicant found liable for damages to the motorbike and the respondent’s safety clothing – whether the adjudicators finding of fact open on the evidence – whether any basis to interfere with findings of fact––whether grounds for a grant of leave – whether any error of law or fact demonstrated.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act section 142(3)(a)(i)

Terera & Anor v Clifford [2017] QCA 181.
Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v McDermott
[2016] HCA 22.

Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikowski [2012] QCATA 39.

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

The parties appeared in person

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. This appeal concerns a motor vehicle accident involving a small pantech truck being driven by Mr Scaffigna and a motorcycle being ridden by Mr Little. The accident occurred on Zillmere Rd, near the intersection of Zillmere Rd and Sandgate Rd. Mr Little alleges that when he turned left into Zillmere Rd from Sandgate Rd, Mr Scaffigna’s truck was parked to the left side of the road then then the truck started to make a right turn across his path of travel. He moved to his right, but the left side of his bike caught the side of the truck, and he came off the bike with the bike landing on top of him.

  2. Mr Scaffigna denies stopping in the left lane and says that after he turned into Zillmere Rd, he slowed the truck with the right indicator on to make a turn into Virginia Palms, which is a few hundred metres along Zillmere Rd from the intersection with Sandgate Rd. Just as he started to make the turn, he looked down to his right and saw the bike on top of Mr Little on the road, stationary near to the centre line. As soon as he saw Mr Little, he immediately stopped the truck and got out and rendered assistance. He was unaware of any collision, and felt nothing untoward in the truck before seeing Mr Little on the road.

  3. The versions of the accident given by both parties are consistent with versions given to police when the incident was reported. No charges were laid for driving without due care an attention or any other breach of the traffic regulations against…

Continue reading Saffigna v Little

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Saffigna v Little [2022] QCATA 161
Case
[2022] QCATA 161
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Saffigna was the driver of a small pantech truck that collided with Little's motorbike. Little sued Saffigna for damages. The tribunal found Saffigna liable for the damage to Little's motorbike and safety clothing, but did not find that the truck was damaged. Saffigna sought leave to appeal the decision. The nature of the dispute was the tribunal's findings of fact, particularly the lack of evidence of damage to the truck and Saffigna's liability for the damages.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide were whether the tribunal's findings of fact were open to challenge and whether there were any grounds for a grant of leave. The court also needed to determine whether there was any error of law or fact demonstrated. The court found that the tribunal's findings of fact were open to challenge, but there was no error of law or fact demonstrated. The court concluded that there were no grounds for a grant of leave and dismissed the application.

The court found that the tribunal's findings of fact were open on the evidence, but there was no error of law or fact demonstrated. The tribunal had considered all the evidence and had made findings of fact that were open to it. The court also found that there were no grounds for a grant of leave. The court held that the tribunal's findings of fact were not so unreasonable as to justify interference by the court. The court found that there was no basis to interfere with the tribunal's findings of fact. The court held that there were no grounds for a grant of leave and dismissed the application.

The final order of the court was that the application for leave to appeal was refused. The court held that there were no grounds for a grant of leave and dismissed the application. The tribunal's findings of fact were not so unreasonable as to justify interference by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal is refused

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.