Skinner v FTP Contracting Pty Ltd - [2019] QCATA 97

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Skinner v FTP Contracting Pty Ltd & Anor [2019] QCATA 97

PARTIES:

MATTHEW SKINNER
(appellant)

v

FTP CONTRACTING PTY LTD
and
MATTHEW COATES

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL119-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDQ5010/19 (Southport)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

Date of orders 18 June 2019

Reasons delivered 3 July 2019

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Browne

ORDERS:

The application to stay a decision filed 15 May 2019 is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where application for a stay of an order made in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction – whether stay should be granted – where the original decision awarded money to the respondent – whether balance of convenience favours the granting of a stay – whether the appeal will be rendered nugatory if stay granted – whether stay should be granted

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 145

Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685
Barker v Lavery (1885) 14 QB 769
Berry v Green [1999] QCA 213

JC Scott Constructions v Mermaid Waters Tavern Pty Ltd (No 1) [1983] 2 Qd R 243

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

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

Matthew Skinner seeks to appeal a decision made by the Tribunal in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction concerning a minor debt claim. Relevantly, the Tribunal ordered on 24 April 2019 in MCDQ5010/19 that Mr Skinner pay to FTP Contracting Pty Ltd and Matthew Coates (the respondents) the sum of $4,877.23 within twenty one days.
Mr Skinner also seeks a stay of the decision in MCDQ5010/19. The Appeal Tribunal has the power to stay the operation of a decision being appealed until the appeal is finally decided.[1]
[1]QCAT Act, s 145.
The stay application was determined by me on 18 June 2019 without an oral hearing on the basis of the written submissions and material filed by the parties.[2] Mr Skinner has requested reasons for my decision now set out below.
[2]See Appeal Tribunal Directions dated 20 May 2019.
Should the application to stay be granted?
It is settled law that the power to grant a stay involves the exercise of a discretion. A party seeking a stay must demonstrate a basis for a stay. The balance of convenience and the competing rights of the parties must be considered in all of the circumstances.[3]
[3]Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685, 694-5.
The fundamental principle governing applications for a stay is that the successful party is entitled to the fruits of its judgment.[4] Other relevant factors include whether success on appeal would be rendered nugatory were a stay not granted, that must be balanced against the expectation of the successful party to the fruits of…

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 Skinner v FTP Contracting Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Skinner v FTP Contracting Pty Ltd [2019] QCATA 97
Case: [2019] QCATA 97
Decision Date: 3 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Skinner commenced proceedings against FTP Contracting in the Magistrates Court of Queensland seeking damages for injuries sustained during the course of his employment. The Magistrates Court awarded damages in favour of Skinner, and FTP Contracting applied for a stay of that order. The primary judge refused the application for a stay, and FTP Contracting appealed that decision. The appeal was to the District Court of Queensland. The central issue before the appeal court was whether the primary judge was correct in refusing the application for a stay of proceedings. The court considered the general principles that guide the grant or refusal of a stay, including the balance of convenience and the risk of rendering the appeal nugatory. The court held that the balance of convenience favoured Skinner, as the award of damages had already been made and paid, whereas FTP Contracting would suffer if the stay was not granted. The court further held that the appeal would not be rendered nugatory if the stay was granted, as the substantive issues could still be determined on appeal. The court concluded that the primary judge was correct in refusing the application for a stay.

The appeal was dismissed, and the order made on 15 May 2019 was upheld. The application to stay that order was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application to stay a decision filed 15 May 2019 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.

CITATION:	Skinner v FTP Contracting Pty Ltd & Anor [2019] QCATA 97
PARTIES:	MATTHEW SKINNER (appellant)
v
FTP CONTRACTING PTY LTD and MATTHEW COATES (respondents)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL119-19
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	MCDQ5010/19 (Southport)
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	Date of orders 18 June 2019 Reasons delivered 3 July 2019
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Browne
ORDERS:	The application to stay a decision filed 15 May 2019 is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where application for a stay of an order made in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction – whether stay should be granted – where the original decision awarded money to the respondent – whether balance of convenience favours the granting of a stay – whether the appeal will be rendered nugatory if stay granted – whether stay should be granted Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 145 Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685 Barker v Lavery (1885) 14 QB 769 Berry v Green [1999] QCA 213 JC Scott Constructions v Mermaid Waters Tavern Pty Ltd (No 1) [1983] 2 Qd R 243
REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	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).