Scott v James Dickson Constructions - [2017] QCATA 74

CITATION:

Scott v James Dickson Constructions & Anor [2017] QCATA 74

PARTIES:	Benjamin Scott (Applicant/ Appellant)
v
James Dickson James Dickson Constructions (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL277-16

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

A/Deputy President Brown

DELIVERED ON:

30 June 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. James Dickson is joined as a respondent.

2. The application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – FROM INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONS – LEAVE TO APPEAL – where order for the removal of respondent – where errors in reasons for removal – whether substantial injustice – whether leave to appeal should be allowed

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 42(1), s 42(1)(b), s 47(1),
s 47(2)(a), s 48(2)(b)(ii), s 126(2), s 142,
s 142(3)(a)(i), s 142(3)(a)(ii), s 143(3),
s 143(5)(c), s 146, Schedule 3
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), r 48(1), r 48(2), r 48(3)

Boral Resources Pty Ltd v Robak Engineering & Construction Pty Ltd [1999] 2 VR 507; [1999] VSCA 66
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Coral Homes (Qld) Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority (No 2) [2012] QCATA 242
Drew v Bundaberg Regional Council [2011] QCA 359
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
Interchase Corporation Ltd (in liquidation) v FAIGeneral Insurance Co Ltd & Ors [2000] 2 Qd R 301
Jones v Cusack (1992) 109 ALR 313; [1992] HCA 40
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577
Mudie v Gainriver Pty Ltd (No 2) [2003] 2 Qd R 271; [2002] QCA 546

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41; [2008] QCA 257

Slater v Wilkes [2012] QCATA 12

APPEARANCES:

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

Mr Scott owns a residential rental property on the Gold Coast. At various times, Platinum Property Real Estate (“Platinum”) managed the property. James Dickson is a builder who, together with Lenore Dickson, operates a partnership called James Dickson Constructions. At various times, Mr Dickson performed building work at the property. Mr Dickson says that Platinum instructed James Dickson Constructions to perform the building work.
Mr Dickson commenced proceedings against Mr Scott for the recovery of a minor debt in the Tribunal’s minor civil disputes jurisdiction seeking recovery of the cost of the building work performed at the property. Mr Dickson and James Dickson Constructions are the applicants in those proceedings. Mr Scott denied authorising Platinum to engage Mr Dickson to perform the building works. Mr Scott successfully applied to join Platinum as a respondent in the proceedings. Platinum then successfully applied to be removed as a respondent. Mr Dickson played no part in these applications. It is the decision…

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 Scott v James Dickson Constructions

Details

AGLC: Scott v James Dickson Constructions [2017] QCATA 74
Case: [2017] QCATA 74
Decision Date: 30 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Scott v James Dickson Constructions, the appeal centred on the removal of the respondent, Scott, from the premises of the appellant, James Dickson Constructions. The dispute originated in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the primary judge ruled on an interlocutory application for Scott's removal. The legal issues before the court were whether there were errors in the reasons provided for Scott's removal and whether those errors constituted a substantial injustice warranting leave to appeal. The court had to balance the right to appeal against the potential for unnecessary delay and expense.

The court examined the nature of the interlocutory decision and the standard of review applicable to such orders. It noted that while interlocutory decisions are generally not appealable, an exception exists if there has been a substantial injustice. The court scrutinised the reasons given by the primary judge for the removal order, identifying certain errors. However, the court found that these errors did not affect the outcome of the decision or result in a substantial injustice. Consequently, the court held that leave to appeal should be refused, as the appeal did not meet the threshold for demonstrating a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that interlocutory orders are usually not appealable unless there is a clear and substantial injustice. The court determined that the errors in the reasons did not impact the fairness or correctness of the decision. As such, the appeal did not meet the stringent criteria for leave to appeal. The court emphasised that granting leave in such cases could lead to unnecessary delays and increase litigation costs. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. James Dickson is joined as a respondent.

2. The 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.