Stanley v Jones

CITATION: Stanley v Jones [2013] QCATA 115

PARTIES:	Cameron Stanley (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Marlene Jones (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL437-12

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Gilbert Trafford-Walker, Judicial Member

DELIVERED ON: 15 April 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where the applicant was in a relationship with the respondent – where the applicant received money from the respondent – where the respondent claimed the money was payment for work done at the respondent’s residence – where the applicant claimed the money was a loan – where the Magistrate at first instance found the money was a loan – where the applicant seeks to appeal that decision – whether leave to appeal should be granted

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

1. On 9 November 2012, Stipendiary Magistrate Brassington, exercising jurisdiction under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ordered the applicant to pay the respondent the sum of $9,438.27.  The Magistrate concluded that that sum was owing as a result of a loan of $15,000.00 by the respondent to the applicant.  The applicant seeks leave to appeal against this order.

2. The applicant accepted that the sum of $15,000.00 had been paid to him by the respondent, however, he maintained that the money had been paid for work he was to carry out on the respondent’s residence.  His case was that all the work agreed had been carried out and no monies were owed.

3. The application is to be determined on the papers.

4. The applicant does not suggest that there was an error of law on the part of the Magistrate, or that in any way he was denied natural justice.  He seeks to overturn the decision on the basis that the Magistrate should not have accepted the evidence of the respondent.

5. Before proceeding to other matters, I state at the outset that the Magistrate correctly stated and applied the law.  Further, it is clear that each party had the opportunity to present their case and to test the case of the opponent by cross-examination.  That brings me to an examination of the evidence relied upon by the Magistrate.

6. It is important to note that the parties were not represented by Counsel or Solicitor.  This means that often the evidence is confusing and not led in a logical manner.  However, with the assistance of the Magistrate, the parties managed to state their case so that it could be understood.

7. I shall briefly state what was not in dispute between the parties.  The respondent lived in Innisfail.  Her residence was damaged in the cyclone which struck Innisfail, and she made a claim to repair that damage under an insurance policy.  The applicant was involved in a dispute over the custody…