Schouten v SNJ Distributors Pty Ltd
[2014] QCATA 117
•5 May 2014
| CITATION: | Schouten & Anor v SNJ Distributors Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] QCATA 117 |
| PARTIES: | Mr Barry John Schouten Mrs Edith Doris Schouten (Applicants/Appellants) |
| v | |
| SNJ Distributors Pty Ltd formerly t/as Armadillo Campers Pty Ltd TMAC Pty Ltd t/as Armadillo Campers (Respondents) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL348 -13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Justice Thomas, President |
| DELIVERED ON: | 5 May 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDER MADE: | The application for leave to appeal is refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where applicants deny having seen correspondence on file – whether this leads to denial of natural justice or fairness – whether grounds for leave to appeal Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 32, s 142(3)(a)(i) Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1, cited |
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 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Many Australians dream of becoming “grey nomads”, hitting the open road in their self-contained mobile home or camper. Mr and Mrs Schouten had that dream and spent many hours researching their ideal mobile home before buying a camper trailer from Armadillo Campers. Unfortunately, the portable fridge they bought earlier did not fit well into the space allocated for it in the trailer. They wanted Armadillo to fix the problem and compensate them for their losses. A Magistrate, sitting as an ordinary member of the tribunal, dismissed their claim.
Mr and Mrs Schouten want to appeal that decision. Their main ground of appeal, as I understand their submissions, is that the learned Magistrate relied on documents that they had never seen. They also dispute the learned Magistrate’s findings of fact.
Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.[1] The principles the appeals tribunal applies when considering an application for leave to appeal are as summarised by Keane JA (as his Honour then was) in Pickering v McArthur:
There are numerous authorities, in varying language but with unvarying emphasis, that leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.[2]
[1] QCAT Act, s142(3)(a)(i).
[2] [2005] QCA 294 at [3]
The appeal tribunal will not usually disturb findings of fact on appeal if the evidence is capable of supporting the conclusions.[3] An appellate tribunal may interfere if the conclusion is ‘contrary to compelling inferences’ in the case.[4] However, the appeal tribunal must exercise its own discretion when considering whether the original decision maker was in error.[5]
[3]Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 at 561; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 125-126.
[4] Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 at 10.
[5] Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 128 per Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Kirby JJ.
The learned Magistrate gave detailed reasons for her decision. She found that Armadillo Campers did not guarantee the fridge would fit. In making her decision, it is clear the learned Magistrate had regard to the evidence of all parties, including an affidavit from Mr and Mrs Schouten’s son. Although reasonable minds may differ as to the result, the evidence can support the learned Magistrate’s decision and I can find no compelling reason to come to a different view.
Mr and Mrs Schouten say that they did not have a copy of CAD drawings concerning the construction of the camper. It is clear that the learned Magistrate, in making her decision, was not concerned with the design of the camper trailer and, therefore, did not rely on any documents relating to the construction of the camper. Mr and Mrs Schouten were not disadvantaged by not having access to the CAD drawings.
Mr and Mrs Schouten say that they did not have copies of “120 pages of non-forwarded correspondence” that was on the tribunal file. Mr and Mrs Schouten filed most of the documents and most of the correspondence on file was between Mr and Mrs Schouten and Armadillo Campers. None of this correspondence should have been a surprise to Mr and Mrs Schouten.
Mr and Mrs Schouten’s submissions on the application for leave to appeal do not deal with the substance of that correspondence. If Mr and Mrs Schouten did not have access to all documents on the file, they have not demonstrated any lack of natural justice or procedural fairness or disadvantage as a result.
There is no question of general importance that should be determined by the appeals tribunal. There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Magistrate was in error, nor is there reasonable prospect of substantive relief on appeal. There is no evidence that a substantial injustice will result if leave is not granted. Leave to appeal should be refused.
0
4
0