Space Con Pty Ltd v Blue Star Pacific Pty Ltd - [2011] QCATA 361

CITATION:

Space Con Pty Ltd v Blue Star Pacific Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 361

PARTIES:	Space Con Pty Ltd (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Blue Star Pacific Pty Ltd (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL352-11

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Richard Oliver, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON:

31 January 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

Minor Civil Dispute – Tribunal processes – where grounds of appeal complain about the hearing process but do not identify error – where complaint not raised at the hearing nor any adjournment sought

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 3(b), 28(3)(b), 28(3)(d), 142(3)

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

In June 2009 Space Con engaged the services of Blue Star to do the electrical work fit out of a sushi bar at the Robina Town Centre Project. Space Con and Blue Star entered into a written agreement for Blue Star to carry out the work at a fixed price of $8,700 plus GST. The written agreement is signed by Raphael Shin on behalf of Space Con. There is no suggestion he did not have authority to sign the agreement.

Space Con gave a cheque for $2,500 to Blue Star for the initial deposit but this cheque was dishonoured. After some discussions with Mr Shin the deposit was ultimately paid by bank transfer and Blue Star commenced to carry out the work.

In additional to the work the subject of the written agreement, further work was agreed to which included repair to a dishwasher, check telephone lines and test a faulty fridge. This work is confirmed in a daily time sheet. The total cost of this was $765.60. Therefore the total amount of the work undertaken by Blue Star was $10,335.60. Of this amount, Space Con only paid $5,782.08.

To recover the balance of $4,553.52, Blue Star commenced a proceeding in the Minor Civil Disputes jurisdiction of the Tribunal on 21 December 2009. The particulars of the claim are conveniently set out in a letter to the Tribunal accompanying the application and it is supported by the written agreement, and various invoices.

By its Response, Space Con firstly admits that it accepted the written quotation given to it by Blue Star. The Response then goes on to deny liability for the outstanding amount on the basis that the work was not performed by Blue Star within a nominated deadline and it did not meet specific performance criteria. As a consequence, it is alleged, Blue Star breached the contract and the resulting damages…

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 Space Con Pty Ltd v Blue Star Pacific 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: [2011] QCATA 361
Decision Date: 31 January 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Space Con Pty Ltd initiated a proceeding in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT) against Blue Star Pacific Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on an alleged breach of a contract concerning the sale of industrial property. The tribunal's decision was unfavourable to Space Con, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellant's grounds for appeal focused on perceived deficiencies in the tribunal's handling of the hearing, but failed to specify any legal errors made. Additionally, these concerns were neither raised during the original hearing nor was an adjournment requested to address them.

The court examined the legal issues regarding the adequacy of the appeal grounds and the procedural fairness of the original hearing. The central question was whether the appellant's grounds of appeal, which did not identify specific legal errors and were not raised at the hearing, were sufficient to warrant a review of the tribunal's decision. The court considered whether the failure to raise these issues during the original hearing, and the absence of a request for an adjournment, precluded a successful appeal.

In determining the appeal, the court found that the appellant's grounds did not identify any specific legal errors made by the tribunal. The appellant's complaints about the hearing process did not translate into grounds for appeal, as they did not demonstrate any error in the tribunal's handling of the case. Furthermore, the failure to raise these issues during the hearing, and the lack of a request for an adjournment, meant that the appellant had not availed itself of the opportunity to rectify any procedural shortcomings at the earliest opportunity. The court concluded that the appeal grounds did not meet the threshold for a review of the tribunal's decision.

Consequently, the court refused the leave to appeal. The appellant's failure to identify specific legal errors and to raise the procedural concerns during the original hearing, coupled with the absence of a request for an adjournment, meant that the appeal did not provide a basis for the court to intervene. The decision of the tribunal was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed without further consideration of the merits.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. 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.