Seneca Textiles Ltd v Red Door Interiors Pty Ltd - [2019] QCATA 157

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Seneca Textiles Ltd v Red Door Interiors Pty Ltd [2019] QCATA 157

PARTIES:

SENECA TEXTILES LTD

(appellant)

v

RED DOOR INTERIORS PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL346-18

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDT641/18

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

20 November 2019

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Hughes

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – interference with findings of Tribunal below – functions of appellate tribunal – where no valid ground of appeal raised – where findings open on evidence – where no reasonably arguable case of Tribunal in error – where no reasonable prospect of substantive relief on appeal

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 121

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Creek v Raine & Horne Mossman [2011] QCATA 226
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577
Piric & Anor v Claudia Tillier Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 152

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41

REPRESENTATION:

Applicants:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Two Justices of the Peace ordered Seneca Textiles Pty Ltd to pay $1,581.30 (out of a claim for $4,427.30) to Red Door Interiors Pty Ltd for defective wallpaper.
Seneca has applied for leave to appeal that decision.
In determining whether to grant leave, the Tribunal will consider established principles including:
(a)whether there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision;[1]
(b)whether there is a reasonable prospect that the appellant will obtain substantive relief;[2]
(c)whether leave is needed to correct a substantial injustice caused by some error;[3] and
(d)whether there is a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage.[4]
[1]QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[2]Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232, 2.
[3]QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[4]Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388, 389; McIver Bulk
Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577, 577, 580.
Seneca’s application for leave to appeal does not address any of these. Instead, it submitted that it was awaiting reasons for the decision and sought to reargue its case by re-submitting the same evidence considered by the learned Justices in making their findings.
After having its request for an adjournment refused, Seneca did not attend the hearing. Seneca has not provided any reasonable explanation for its failure…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Seneca Textiles Ltd v Red Door Interiors Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] QCATA 157
Decision Date: 20 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Seneca Textiles Ltd sought to appeal against a decision made by the Fair Work Commission in a dispute with Red Door Interiors Pty Ltd. The case centred on the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009 and related industrial instruments. The primary dispute involved allegations of unfair dismissal and associated compensation claims. The Fair Work Commission found in favour of Red Door Interiors, concluding that the dismissal was not unfair and that no compensation was warranted. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Seneca Textiles sought to appeal the decision to a higher court.

The central legal issues in this appeal revolved around the standard of review applicable to the Commission’s findings, the scope of appellate jurisdiction, and the threshold for establishing a valid ground of appeal. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the appeal presented a reasonably arguable case that the Tribunal's decision was in error and whether there was a reasonable prospect of substantive relief on appeal. The court also had to consider whether the appeal interfered with the Tribunal’s findings, which were based on the evidence presented.

In its decision, the court emphasised that appellate tribunals should not interfere with findings of fact made by the primary decision-maker unless there is a clear error. The court found that Seneca Textiles had not presented any valid grounds for appeal, as the Tribunal’s findings were open on the evidence and there was no reasonably arguable case that the Tribunal was in error. The court further noted that there was no reasonable prospect of substantive relief on appeal, thereby confirming that the appeal did not meet the necessary threshold. Consequently, the court refused leave to appeal, upholding the decision of the Fair Work Commission.

The orders of the court were straightforward: leave to appeal was refused. This outcome underscores the high threshold that must be met for an appeal to succeed and reinforces the principle that appellate courts should be cautious in overturning findings of fact made by the primary tribunal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal 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.

CITATION:	Seneca Textiles Ltd v Red Door Interiors Pty Ltd [2019] QCATA 157
PARTIES:	SENECA TEXTILES LTD (appellant)
v
RED DOOR INTERIORS PTY LTD (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL346-18
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	MCDT641/18
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	20 November 2019
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Hughes
ORDERS:	Leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – interference with findings of Tribunal below – functions of appellate tribunal – where no valid ground of appeal raised – where findings open on evidence – where no reasonably arguable case of Tribunal in error – where no reasonable prospect of substantive relief on appeal Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 121 Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 Creek v Raine & Horne Mossman [2011] QCATA 226 Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577 Piric & Anor v Claudia Tillier Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 152 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41
REPRESENTATION:
Applicants:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).