Singh v Red Plum Automotive - [2021] QCATA 93

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Singh v Red Plum Automotive [2021] QCATA 93

PARTIES:

ARPIT SINGH

(appellant)

v

RED PLUM AUTOMOTIVE PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL295-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO0085/18

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

22 July 2021

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 DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – CONTROL OVER PROCEEDINGS – where allegation of denial of procedural fairness – where Tribunal has mandate to deal with matters quickly – where appellant had ten months to consider respondent’s statement of evidence – where appellant did not raise it as an issue or seek adjournment at hearing – where appellant had enough time to consider evidence and respond – where appellant given opportunity to present case - where appellant was afforded procedural fairness within context of Tribunal’s minor civil disputes jurisdiction

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – interference with findings of Tribunal below – functions of appellate Tribunal – 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 3, s 28

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Creek v Raine & Horne Real Estate Mossman [2011] QCATA 226
Berry v Treasure [2021] QCATA 61
Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39
Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404
Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1
Gollan v Vaccaneo [2013] QCATA 228
King v ASIC [2018] QCA 352
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Mataitini v North Shore Realty Sunshine Coast [2020] QCATA 154
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294
Piric & Anor v Claudia Tiller Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 152
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
Rayner & Anor v Trabme Pty Ltd t/as Elders Redcliffe [2013] QCATA 212
Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251
Slater v Wilkes [2012] QCATA 12

Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247

REPRESENTATION:

Appellant:

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

Arpit Singh received a brokerage service for which he did not pay.
Red Plum Automotive Pty Ltd is a car broker who sourced a BMW for Mr Singh to buy. It did what it said it would do. Mr Singh then decided he did not want to buy the car or pay Red’s fees. An Adjudicator ordered Mr Singh to pay Red’s $880.00 brokerage plus $120.50 filing fee.
Mr Singh has applied for leave to appeal that decision. As the President of the Tribunal recently observed, there is no automatic right of appeal against minor…

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 Singh v Red Plum Automotive 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: [2021] QCATA 93
Decision Date: 22 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh v Red Plum Automotive involved an appeal against a decision made by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The dispute centred on allegations of procedural unfairness and incorrect findings of fact by the Tribunal in relation to a minor civil matter. Singh, the appellant, argued that the Tribunal did not allow him procedural fairness and erred in its findings. Red Plum Automotive, the respondent, maintained that the Tribunal's decision was fair and supported by the evidence.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had interfered with Singh's procedural rights and if the Tribunal's findings of fact were open on the evidence. The court considered the principles of procedural fairness, the Tribunal's mandate to handle cases efficiently, and the rules governing the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal. The court also assessed whether there was a reasonable prospect of success on appeal, given the evidence presented at the original hearing.

In its reasoning, the court found that Singh had ample opportunity to consider the evidence and present his case during the original proceedings. The Tribunal provided procedural fairness within the context of its minor civil disputes jurisdiction. Regarding the fresh evidence, the court held that Singh failed to satisfy the criteria for its admission, as it was reasonably available at the time of the original hearing. Even if the evidence had been admitted, it would not have likely affected the outcome. The court concluded that the Tribunal's findings were open on the evidence and that there was no reasonably arguable case of error. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was refused.

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

This ground of appeal is dismissed.Were the findings open on the evidence? In challenging the learned Adjudicator’s findings of fact, Mr Singh sought to rely upon fresh evidence: phone records of a call he made to Red. Mr Singh said that because this call lasted only 604 seconds, it proves that Red could not have told him its brokerage fee in this call and that the Tribunal should “pursue details of the phone call, date and duration on which [Red] told me about [the] brokerage fee”. Apart from this, Mr Singh sought to reargue his case. The Appeal Tribunal will only accept fresh evidence if it was not reasonably available at the time the proceeding was heard and determined. Ordinarily, an application for leave to adduce fresh evidence must satisfy three tests:[25] (a)Could the parties have obtained the evidence with reasonable diligence for use at the trial? (b)If allowed, would the evidence probably have an important impact on the result of the case? (c)Is the evidence credible?[25]Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404, 408. It is not the Tribunal’s role to pursue evidence to support Mr Singh’s case. Mr Singh had an obligation to act in his own best interests, including providing all evidence at the hearing to support his case:The statutory regime under which QCAT operates places obligations upon parties themselves to take care in their dealings with Tribunal matters, and to act in their own best interests. QCAT’s resources for the resolution of disputes are in high demand and serve, as the High Court has recently observed in relation to court resources, ‘…the public as a whole, not merely the parties to the proceedings’. Finality in litigation is highly desirable, because any further action beyond the hearing can be costly and unnecessarily burdensome on the parties.[26] [26]Creek v Raine & Horne Real Estate Mossman [2011] QCATA 226, [13], citing with approval Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175, 217. Mr Singh did not provide any explanation for why he did not provide his fresh evidence at the hearing. The onus was always upon Mr Singh to present his case and bring all relevant material and witnesses to the hearing. He did not and his failure to provide a reasonable explanation is itself sufficient to not allow the fresh evidence. However, even if the fresh evidence were admitted into evidence, it has little evidential weight and is unlikely to affect the outcome of the case. The length of the phone call was sufficient to discuss brokerage. At most, the fresh evidence allows the drawing of a possible alternative inference. But it does not prove this. Attempting to explain away the learned Adjudicator’s finding with a possible alternative inference does not demonstrate error. Mr Singh said that the learned Adjudicator erred by accepting Red’s story over his and ignored facts that cast doubt on Red’s witness. It is not an error to prefer one version of facts to another.[27] In making her findings, it is clear that the learned Adjudicator accepted Red’s evidence.[28] That is unremarkable and entirely within her purview. Having considered the filed material and heard the evidence of both parties, the learned Adjudicator was in the best position to assess credit and make findings accordingly. [27]Slater v Wilkes [2012] QCATA 12, [6].[28]Transcript dated 2 September 2020, page 1-26, lines 11 to 38.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Singh v Red Plum Automotive [2021] QCATA 93
PARTIES:	ARPIT SINGH (appellant)
v
RED PLUM AUTOMOTIVE PTY LTD (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL295-20
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	MCDO0085/18
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	22 July 2021
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 DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – CONTROL OVER PROCEEDINGS – where allegation of denial of procedural fairness – where Tribunal has mandate to deal with matters quickly – where appellant had ten months to consider respondent’s statement of evidence – where appellant did not raise it as an issue or seek adjournment at hearing – where appellant had enough time to consider evidence and respond – where appellant given opportunity to present case - where appellant was afforded procedural fairness within context of Tribunal’s minor civil disputes jurisdiction APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – interference with findings of Tribunal below – functions of appellate Tribunal – 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 3, s 28 Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Creek v Raine & Horne Real Estate Mossman [2011] QCATA 226 Berry v Treasure [2021] QCATA 61 Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39 Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404 Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1 Gollan v Vaccaneo [2013] QCATA 228 King v ASIC [2018] QCA 352 Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 Mataitini v North Shore Realty Sunshine Coast [2020] QCATA 154 Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 Piric & Anor v Claudia Tiller Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 152 Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589 Rayner & Anor v Trabme Pty Ltd t/as Elders Redcliffe [2013] QCATA 212 Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251 Slater v Wilkes [2012] QCATA 12 Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
REPRESENTATION:
Appellant:	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).