| CITATION: | Santo v Davidson [2017] QCATA 27 |
| PARTIES: | Gary Bruce Santo (Applicant/Appellant) | |
| v | ||
| Kristy Marie Davidson | ||
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL252-16 | |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Justice Carmody |
| DELIVERED ON: | 20 February 2017 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | IT IS THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL THAT: 1. Leave to appeal is granted. 2. The appeal is dismissed. | ||
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – WHERE INFERENCES OF FACT INVOLVED – WHERE FACTS IN DISPUTE – where the tribunal found that the appellant was liable for the parties’ collision – where the parties gave conflicting versions of events – whether the tribunals inferences of fact were open on the evidence – whether leave to appeal should be granted – whether the appeal should be allowed Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 142(3)(a)(i), 146 Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 (Qld) rr 141, 153 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 | ||
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers without the attendance of either party in accordance with s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“QCAT Act”).
REASONS FOR DECISION
In 2015, the appellant’s motorcycle and the respondent’s car collided with each other at a busy Townsville crossroads. He was turning right. She was overtaking a line of stationary oncoming traffic on the outside. They cross-claimed their panel beating costs from each other.
The tribunal held the appellant 100% liable on the basis that the most likely explanation for the incident was his failure to keep a proper lookout, rather than the respondent’s speed or manner of driving. Its decision was not based on the resolution of conflicting versions of the parties nor their comparative performance as witnesses, but rather on an analysis and evaluation of their objective conduct in the circumstances leading up to the collision.
Thus, the major issue on appeal is not as much the correctness of any major or minor facts but whether, based on them, the tribunal impermissibly drew a wrong inference of ultimate fact; that is, that the appellant was negligent and liable for the damage caused by the collision. As this…
- AGLC
- Santo v Davidson [2017] QCATA 27
- Case
- [2017] QCATA 27
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the tribunal's inferences of fact were open on the evidence and whether the tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction in making those findings. The court also had to determine whether leave to appeal should be granted and, if so, whether the appeal should succeed. The court had to carefully consider the tribunal's reasoning, the evidence presented, and the applicable legal principles to determine the correctness of the tribunal's decision.
The court found that the tribunal's inferences of fact were open on the evidence, and the tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction in making those findings. The court held that it was not appropriate to interfere with the tribunal's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their evidence. The tribunal had considered all relevant evidence and provided sufficient reasons for its decision, which the court found to be sound. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, affirming the tribunal's decision.
No further orders were made by the court beyond granting leave to appeal and dismissing the appeal. The decision confirmed the tribunal's findings of liability and the award of damages to Davidson. The court's reasoning underscored the limited role of appellate courts in reviewing factual findings made by tribunals, particularly where those findings are supported by the evidence and the tribunal's reasoning is sound.
Orders
Orders of the court
IT IS THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL THAT:
1. Leave to appeal is granted.
2. The appeal is dismissed.
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.