Stanton v Palmer - [2024] QCATA 36

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Stanton v Palmer [2024] QCATA 36

PARTIES:

BENJAMIN JOHN STANTON

(applicant/appellant)

v

KERRI ANN PALMER T/A KJR BULLDOGS

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL280-22

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO57-22

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

19 March 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Richard Oliver

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – where applicant purchased a puppy bulldog from the respondent– where contract included a guarantee for heredity conditions – where the dog became ill from abdominal obstruction – where heredity conditions identified and required treatment – where dog euthanised – whether cause of the dog being euthanised was from heredity conditions or abdominal obstruction – whether guarantee applied.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 143(3)(a)(i)

Rintoul v State of Queensland & Ors [2018] QCA 20

Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v McDermott

[2016] HCA 22

Terera v Clifford [2017] QCA 181

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

On or about 25 July 2021 the applicant purchased a British Bulldog puppy from the respondent for $5,000.00. Due to serious health complications with the dog, she was euthanised on 30 May 2022. As part the purchase contract, the respondent included a “Health/Purchase Guarantee” (“the guarantee”). The guarantee applied until the dog reached 12 months of age and was for “all life altering ‘hereditary’ defects excluding hip and elbow dysphasia”. The applicant sought to rely on the guarantee to obtain a full refund from the respondent, but this was rejected although she offered to refund half the purchase price or give the applicant another dog.
The applicant then commenced a proceeding in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the Tribunal claiming a refund of the purchase price plus associated veterinary fees in the sum of $6,007.00, principally in reliance on the guarantee.
The matter came on for hearing by a Tribunal adjudicator (“the adjudicator”) on 15 September 2022. After hearing from the parties and considering the documentary evidence, including veterinary reports, the applicant’s claim was dismissed.
Subsequent to that decision, on 20 September 2022 the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal. As this is an appeal brought under s 142(3)(a)(i) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 in respect of a decision in a proceeding for minor civil dispute, an appeal may be made only if the party has obtained leave of the Tribunal. Leave to appeal (or permission) will usually only be granted where there is a reasonable argument the decision was attended by error, or that an appeal is necessary to correct the substantial injustice caused by the error.[1] Further in Rintoul v State of Queensland & Ors [2018] QCA 20 at [10] the Court of Appeal reiterated the general principles:
The principles governing…

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 Stanton v Palmer

Details

AGLC: Stanton v Palmer [2024] QCATA 36
Case: [2024] QCATA 36
Decision Date: 19 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stanton v Palmer involved the applicant, Stanton, who had purchased a puppy bulldog from the respondent, Palmer. The dispute centred around a contractual guarantee for heredity conditions that was included in the purchase agreement. The bulldog subsequently fell ill due to an abdominal obstruction, and despite treatment, the dog was euthanized. The crux of the matter was whether the cause of the dog's euthanasia was due to the heredity conditions covered by the guarantee or the abdominal obstruction. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the guarantee clause in the contract and determining whether the heredity conditions or the abdominal obstruction was the primary cause of the dog's death. The court had to consider whether the guarantee applied to the situation and if the cause of death was related to the heredity conditions. The applicant argued that the heredity conditions were the primary cause and that the guarantee should apply, while the respondent contended that the abdominal obstruction was the primary cause and thus outside the scope of the guarantee.

The court examined the terms of the contract and the medical evidence provided. It held that the primary cause of the dog's death was the abdominal obstruction, and therefore, the heredity conditions guarantee did not apply. The court found that the applicant's appeal was not well-founded and refused leave to appeal. Consequently, the decision of the lower court was upheld, and the applicant's claim for compensation under the guarantee was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.