Spalding v Filipetto

Case [2022] QCATA 56

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION

Spalding v Filipetto [2022] QCATA 056

PARTIES: JOHN SPALDING

(applicant)

v
DAVID FILIPETTO

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL009-21

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON: 

3 May 2022

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr J R Forbes

ORDERS:

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL CLAIM – where respondent proposes to compete in  motor race event- where agreement for hire of racing car – where payment for hire made to applicant owner of car – where car found to mechanically unfit to participate in race - where car withdrawn from competition – whether respondent entitled to refund of moneys paid to application – where Tribunal finds consideration wholly failed – where order made for refund – where respondent seeks leave to appeal that decision – where grounds of appeal amended or added without appropriate order – where additional grounds effectively seek to retry the matter – where limitations of application for leave considered –– whether any appellable error - where leave to appeal refused

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32, s 64, s 142, s 143

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175

Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139

Devries vAustralian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Felton & Anor v Raine and Horne Real Estate [2011] QCATA 330

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118http://

JM v QFG and KG [1998] QCA 228

Lucas v Habul [2020] QCATA 53

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS & Another (2010) 240 CLR 611
Myers v Medical Practitioners Board (2007) 18 VR 48

Noonan v Osborne and Body Corporate for Spinnaker CTS 40812 [2020] QCATA 130
QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd  [2009] 1 Qd R 41

Robinson v Corr [2011] QCATA 302

Sali v SPC Limited (1993) 67 ALJR 841

Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014

Spalding v Filipetto APL009-21

Worthington v Ryan [2018] QCATA 192.

W (an infant) In re [1971] AC 682

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

Introduction 

  1. The motor raceway on Bathurst’s Mt Panorama (`the track’) is one of the best known in Australia, and, some say, one of the most dangerous. Cars that compete on it must be in top condition for the sake of competitors’ safety.[1]

    [1]Spalding v Filipetto APL 009-21 Transcript of hearing 18 August 2020 (`T’) page 4 line 26.

  2. On Easter weekend in 2018 the track hosted the annual endurance race known as the `Bathurst 6 hour’. The respondent (Filipetto) was keen to compete, and went in search for a suitable car. As a `paying driver’ he made a verbal agreement with the applicant (`Spalding’) to drive…

Continue reading Spalding v Filipetto

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Spalding v Filipetto [2022] QCATA 56
Case
[2022] QCATA 56
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Spalding v Filipetto, the respondent had entered into an agreement with the applicant for the hire of a racing car, which was to be used in a motor race event. The respondent made the agreed payment to the applicant, the owner of the car. However, upon inspection, the car was found to be mechanically unfit to participate in the race, and it was subsequently withdrawn from the competition. The respondent sought a refund of the moneys paid to the applicant. The Tribunal found that the consideration had wholly failed and ordered a refund. The respondent then sought leave to appeal this decision, but the grounds of appeal were amended or added without the appropriate order, and additional grounds effectively sought to retry the matter.

The legal issues before the court were whether the respondent was entitled to a refund of the moneys paid to the applicant, and whether the grounds of appeal were properly formulated. The court considered whether there was any appellable error and whether the respondent had a right to appeal the decision of the Tribunal. The court noted that the additional grounds of appeal effectively sought to retry the matter, which is not the purpose of an appeal. The court also considered the limitations of an application for leave to appeal and whether the respondent had demonstrated any error that warranted an appeal.

The court found that there was no appellable error in the decision of the Tribunal, and that the respondent had not demonstrated any grounds for leave to appeal. The court noted that the additional grounds of appeal effectively sought to retry the matter, which is not the purpose of an appeal. The court also found that the limitations of an application for leave to appeal had been considered, and that the respondent had not demonstrated any error that warranted an appeal. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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.