Stanley v Jones
[2013] QCATA 115
•15 April 2013
| 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
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.
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.
The application is to be determined on the papers.
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.
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.
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.
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 of his children with his former wife, and a domestic relationship developed between the parties.
The applicant agreed to carry out the repairs to the respondent’s residence as authorised under the insurance policy. He also agreed to carry out other repair work on the residence.
The respondent helped the applicant in the preparation of the documents in relation to his custody dispute. The respondent lent the applicant some small sums of money which were repaid. Then she drew $15,000.00 from her bank account, and gave it to the applicant.
The applicant carried out the work under the insurance policy. He was paid $7,820.00 for that work by the insurance company, which sum he deposited into the respondent’s bank account. The domestic relationship between the parties broke down and the respondent sought recovery of the balance of the $15,000.00 which she said she had given to the applicant on loan.
The applicant’s evidence was that the $15,000.00 was not a loan but payment for the insurance work plus other work on the respondent’s residence. In answer to that, the respondent’s evidence was that the extra work was done in furtherance of their relationship, plus payment for the work she had done assisting the applicant with his custody dispute.
The case turned upon the finding by the Magistrate that the $15,000.00 was a loan. In this case, there are a number of reasons to support that finding.
The strongest argument for the respondent was her financial position at the relevant time. To make the loan to the applicant, it was necessary for her to access her home loan. As further proof of her financial position, her evidence was that at the time of the hearing in Innisfail, she was still paying interest to the bank on part of the borrowed sum.
The final point to be made is that the Magistrate had the benefit of hearing and seeing the parties giving evidence. Taking all these matters into account, the Magistrate concluded that the respondent was a direct and truthful witness. That assessment by the Magistrate is supported by the evidence.
There is no basis to interfere with the order, and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2
0
0