Shapcott v Precision Property Maintenance and Landscaping Toowoomba
[2025] QCATA 96
•3 October 2025
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Shapcott v Precision Property Maintenance and Landscaping Toowoomba [2025] QCATA 96
PARTIES:
MARILYN SHAPCOTT (applicant/appellant)
v
PRECISION PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND LANDCSAPING TOOWOOMBA (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
APL104-24
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:
Q99/24
MATTER TYPE:
Appeals
DELIVERED ON:
3 October 2025
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Judicial Member Rinaudo AM
ORDERS:
IT IS THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL THAT:
1. Pursuant to s 147 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), there is no error of fact or law in the decision of the original Tribunal on 16 February 2024.
2. Leave to appeal is not granted and the appeal is dismissed.
3. The applicant’s application to rely on fresh evidence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – where the present appeal is on a question of mixed law and fact – where the applicant’s claim at first instance was determined to not be substantially within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was a claim for damages – whether the reasons of the original Tribunal raise any error of fact or law – whether leave to appeal should be granted
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
Allen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCATA 66
Campbell v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCATA 34
Hashfield v Gold Coast City Council [2020] QCATA 36
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
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
History
The applicant appeals a decision made by a learned Magistrate sitting as a Tribunal Member at Toowoomba on 16 February 2024 regarding an application made by the respondent for moneys owed by the applicant for two unpaid invoices, together being a total of $5,613.93. The first invoice concerned house cleaning type work and the second involved fencing rectification work.
The learned Magistrate granted the respondent’s application on the basis that the respondent abandoned its claim for fencing work. The applicant’s counterclaim was dismissed because she filed another claim that mirrored her counterclaim. At first instance, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent the sum of $2,670.78, being comprised of:
(a)Claim $2,310.00;
(b)Filing fees $130.70; and
(c)Interest $230.08.
The claim by the applicant, that mirrored the dismissed counterclaim, was for the amount of $18,773.98, that being for:[1]
[1]Transcript of Proceedings, Precision Property Maintenance and Landscaping Toowoomba v Marilyn Shapcott (Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Q99/22, Magistrate Shephard, 16 February 2024) 1-3 ll 35-38.
(a)agistment costs;
(b)water consumption;
(c)barley;
(d)used hay bales;
(e)the cost of fixing damaged irrigation pipes;
(f)the cost of rectifying contaminated soil;
(g)the cost of removing the barbed wire fencing;
(h)the cost to restore a fence; and
(i)the cost to eradicate toxic fireweed.
In dealing with the applicant’s claim, the learned Magistrate determined that the claim was not substantially within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, having regard to a number of authorities, including and in particular Hashfield v Gold Coast City Council [2020] QCATA 36, and dismissed her claim on that basis.
In respect of the amount ordered to be paid to the respondent, the learned Magistrate set out her reasons in detail:[2]
I take this as an admission by Ms Shapcott that the invoice is due to be paid and an acceptance of the amount invoiced and despite the evidence from Ms Shapcott in her affidavit and given orally today, Mr Grant [(the Director of the defendant company)] has satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that those moneys are owing to him.
[2]Ibid 1-29-1-30, see particularly 1-30 ll 41-46.
Applicable law
The jurisdiction to hear appeals is conferred upon the Tribunal pursuant to section 25 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’). Section 25 states as follows:
The Tribunal’s appeal jurisdiction is –
(a) the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by section 26; and
(b) the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by an enabling Act to hear and decide an appeal against a decision of another entity under that Act.
Section 26 of the QCAT Act states that:
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide an appeal against a decision of the Tribunal in the circumstances mentioned in section 142.
The applicant appeals pursuant to section 142 of the QCAT Act. Subsection 142(1) states as follows:
A party to a proceeding may appeal to the Appeal Tribunal against a decision of the Tribunal in the proceeding if a judicial member did not constitute the Tribunal in the proceeding.
Section 142(3) states that an appeal under section 142(1) against any of the listed decisions of the Tribunal may be made only if the party has obtained the Appeal Tribunal’s leave to appeal.
In Allen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCATA 66 at [2], Judicial Member McGill SC summarised the approach to leave in the Appeal Tribunal:
As a general proposition, when leave to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal is required, it will be granted only where there is a reasonable argument that the decision was attended by error and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice caused by that error, or where the appeal raises a question of general importance upon which further argument and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal would be to the public advantage. An Appeal Tribunal would not usually disturb findings of fact on appeal if the evidence is capable of supporting the finding, and it is not contrary to compelling interferences. If leave to appeal is granted, the appeal is by way of rehearing so far as it is against a decision on a question of fact, or of mixed fact and law: the QCAT Act s 147. Otherwise it is an appeal which will only correct an error of law: the QCAT Act s 146.
The principles were also referred to by Senior Member Brown and Member Traves in Campbell v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCATA 34 at [17]:
The relevant principles to be applied in determining whether to grant leave to appeal are well established: is there a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision; is there a reasonable prospect that the applicant will obtain substantial relief; is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by some error; is there a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the appellate court or Tribunal, would be to the public advantage.
The enabling Act is the QCAT Act. In particular, sections 10(1)(a) and 11 of the QCAT Act give jurisdiction to the Tribunal to hear and decide a minor civil dispute. Relevantly, ‘minor civil dispute’ is defined by the QCAT Act in schedule 3 as:
a claim to recover a debt or liquidated demand of money of up to the prescribed amount
In the usual course, leave to appeal will usually only be granted where it is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant and where there is a reasonable argument that there was an error to be corrected. In this case, leave to appeal is required as the matter concerns the proceedings for a minor civil dispute. The present appeal is on a question of mixed law and fact.
When dealing with an application for leave to appeal, the appeal must be decided by way of rehearing. The Appeal Tribunal may allow additional evidence. The Appeal Tribunal may confirm or amend the decision or set aside the decision and substitute its own decision or set aside the decision and return the matter to the Tribunal or other entity for reconsideration.
Submissions
The applicant attached a document titled ‘Q99/22 Grounds for Leave to Appeal’ to her application for leave to appeal or appeal filed 18 April 2024.
The first ground is that the applicant understood that the two applications, namely Q99/22 and Q08/23, were to be heard consecutively, whereas the learned Magistrate dealt with them simultaneously. Having read the transcript of the reasons of the learned Magistrate, I am satisfied that no error has occurred because the learned Magistrate dealt with both applications simultaneously. Indeed, it was appropriate that she do so.
The second ground was that the applicant was unable to access the Tribunal’s online transcript portal. I am satisfied that nothing turns on this point as transcripts were made available.
The third ground is that the applicant did not have a full understanding of what was said and seeks a review of relevant documents, together with new evidence which was unavailable at the time. For the reasons below, new evidence is not admitted in respect of this application and the learned Magistrate set out in clear detail the reasons for her decision, which have been made available to the applicant.
Ground four notes that the applicant was recovering from a stress-related medical incident and did not have the opportunity to verbally challenge nor refute a number of false statements and truncated SMS images submitted by the respondent during the hearing of 99/22 on 16 February 2022. I am satisfied, having read the transcript, that the learned Magistrate took into account all of the oral submissions made by the parties and all of the documentary evidence that was before her at the time.
Ground five is that the applicant categorically denies there was any agreement to pay the respondent an unconditional labour rate of $70 per hour; she describes this as an allusion to a discussion on 5 April 2022, solely relating to a two-day construction task, which was defaulted by the respondent. Once again, the learned Magistrate’s consideration of this evidence and reasoning behind her determination are clearly set out in her reasons.
Ground six is that the applicant denies that she happily paid invoice 059 for $2,387 for unspecified ‘labour 31 hours’. The learned Magistrate took into account the applicant’s evidence in relation to those matters and the reasons speak for themselves.
Ground seven notes that the learned Magistrate specifically mentioned the respondent’s defunct invoice 060, which was a claim for $2,240 also for unspecified ‘labour 32 hours’, issued 9 July 2022 and a claim for $70 for ‘transport of mower and sheep on 27 July 2022’. This is noted and once again, reference is made to the learned Magistrate’s reasons.
Ground eight notes that itemisation of invoice 060 had been requested but not received until 26 August 2022 in the form of invoice 083, which the applicant refutes as a contrived fabrication. This ground has been taken into account by the learned Magistrate.
Ground nine is that the response statement filed by her in Q99/22 contains possible oversights by the learned Magistrate in the absence of new evidence (items (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv)). Given the limited nature of the order made by the learned Magistrate in respect of the payment of one invoice, which the learned Magistrate found the applicant had agreed to, the new evidence is of no assistance and leave is not granted for it to be filed.
The applicant also notes that, in conclusion, the respondent also misinformed the Court in respect of resources consumed by his cattle:
(a)The shedded hay was beardless (i.e., awn free) forage hay specifically grown for horses, with a replacement cost of $768.
(b)There is no solar powered domestic bore, with a replacement cost of $2,395.80.
The applicant notes that the learned Magistrate made mention of:
possible consideration of off-set compensation for hay consumed by the respondent’s cattle. However, cattle consumption off-sets were denied; apparently due to exclusion from QCAT’s jurisdiction (?)
Nevertheless, these were a conditional part of settlement of the respondent’s invoices 060/083 and the exclusion of these two alone created a heavy financial burden for me.
The respondent submits that the appeal should be dismissed. The respondent says that the diary submitted by the applicant is a complete lie and defames himself and my businesses.
Discussion
I am satisfied that, the learned Magistrate considered all of the material before her and gave cogent reasons for her decision, which do not, on their face, raise any error of law or fact.
The determination by the learned Magistrate that the applicant admitted owing the amount of the invoice ordered to be paid by her to the respondent was a matter for the learned Magistrate to determine. As she correctly said, it is clear from the transcript that the learned Magistrate made this determination on the balance of probabilities, having regard to all of the evidence placed before her, weighing the credibility of the evidence presented to her. In those circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with her determination based on her assessment of the evidence.
The determination by the learned Magistrate not to deal with the applicant’s application is, in my view, correct for the reasons given by the learned Magistrate that the claims were substantially outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The applicant was made aware of this by the learned Magistrate. Because the learned Magistrate would not deal with the claims because they were outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction does not mean that the applicant cannot bring an application for the moneys claimed by her in an appropriate jurisdiction, after obtaining appropriate legal advice. As the learned Magistrate said to the parties:[3]
… whether you both choose to pursue your claims in another jurisdiction is a matter for you and something you might want to get legal advice on.
[3]Ibid 1-34 ll 32-34.
Accordingly, I am satisfied no error of law or fact was made by the learned Magistrate and accordingly leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed.
0
3
1