Scapehold Pty Ltd v Hughes - [2015] QCATA 140

CITATION:	Scapehold Pty Ltd v Hughes [2015] QCATA 140
PARTIES:	Scapehold Pty Ltd (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Simon Hughes (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL191-15

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

11 September 2015

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Brown

DELIVERED ON:

21 September 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – defective motor vehicle - where evidence not given under oath or affirmation – whether party attending hearing by telephone disadvantaged – where change of name of respondent at hearing – whether findings of Adjudicator against the weight of evidence

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2 s 54, s 259,
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 57, s 95, s 142

Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Casey v Repatriation Commission (1995) 39 ALD 34
Cerednic v Freeman & Ors [2011] QCATA 025
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
In Re W (an infant) [1971] AC 682
Kuenstner & Anor v Ray White Murrumba Downs [2014] QCATA 169
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS & Another (2010) 240 CLR 611
QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Jordan & Jiang [1998] 155 ALR 236

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

Gerhard Fischer, Director of Scapehold Pty Ltd

RESPONDENT:

Simon Hughes

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this appeal about?

Simon Hughes bought a Subaru WRX (‘the Subaru’) from Scapehold Pty Ltd trading as Gerhards Quality Cars (‘Gerhards’). The Subaru had a number of mechanical defects. Mr Hughes pursued a minor civil dispute claim in the Tribunal against Gerhards. An Adjudicator awarded Mr Hughes damages totalling $11,698.60. Gerhard appeals against the decision of the Adjudicator.

The hearing

The hearing was conducted on 17 March 2015. Mr Hughes attended in person. Mr Fischer, a director of Gerhards, attended the hearing by telephone from the Australian Capital Territory where the business operated.
Gerhards had earlier sought an adjournment of the hearing. That application was refused and Gerhards was given leave on 11 March 2015 to attend the hearing by telephone.
Gerhards did not object to giving evidence by telephone either following the decision of 11 March 2015 or before or during the hearing.
It is apparent from a reading of the transcript that the Adjudicator was conscious of the need to ensure that Mr Fischer was able to hear and to be heard during the hearing.
Early in the hearing, the Adjudicator invited Mr Fischer to use a landline rather than the mobile telephone he was using[1]. Mr Fischer declined this invitation, advising the Adjudicator that the landline would be interrupted by the sound of incoming calls. Accordingly, for a period of time at least, Mr Fischer attended the hearing by mobile phone.
[1]Transcript of proceedings, p 1-5, line 17
The Adjudicator…

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.

Continue reading Scapehold Pty Ltd v Hughes

Details

AGLC: Scapehold Pty Ltd v Hughes [2015] QCATA 140
Case: [2015] QCATA 140
Decision Date: 21 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Scapehold Pty Ltd v Hughes, Scapehold Pty Ltd sought to appeal a decision made by an Adjudicator regarding a defective motor vehicle. The primary issue before the court was whether Scapehold Pty Ltd was disadvantaged by the respondent, Hughes, attending the hearing by telephone rather than in person. Another point of contention was the change in Hughes’ name during the hearing and whether the Adjudicator's findings were against the weight of the evidence presented.

The court examined the procedural fairness of the hearing, considering the impact of Hughes' remote participation. It assessed whether this arrangement compromised the opportunity for a fair hearing. Additionally, the court reviewed the evidence presented and the Adjudicator's conclusions to determine if they were properly supported by the facts. The court held that Scapehold Pty Ltd had not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from Hughes' method of participation. Furthermore, the court found that the Adjudicator's findings were consistent with the evidence, despite the name change.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The court ruled that there was no basis for overturning the Adjudicator's decision, as it was neither unfair nor unsupported by the evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to 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.