Stoker v Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General

The case of Stoker v Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General involves an appeal from the decision of the Tribunal which found that there was no 'claimable event' in relation to two alleged misrepresentations by a motor dealer. The applicants sought leave to appeal the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the evidence and in its assessment of the financial loss. The court was required to determine whether there was a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision, a reasonable prospect of obtaining substantive relief, the necessity to correct a substantial injustice, and the presence of a question of general importance.

The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the fresh evidence they sought to rely on could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence. The evidence was not relevant to the issues in the appeal, and the applicants had not shown that it would have an important impact on the result of the case. Furthermore, the court found that the applicants' argument that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the evidence and in its assessment of the financial loss did not have merit. The court held that the representation that the caravan would undergo a 'workshop inspection' was a representation about a future matter, and it was not a representation about an existing fact. The onus was on the applicants to establish that the person had reasonable grounds for making the representation, which they had not done.

In light of the above findings, the court refused the applicants' application to rely on fresh evidence and refused leave to appeal. The court held that there was no reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision, no reasonable prospect of obtaining substantive relief, no substantial injustice caused by any error, and no question of general importance. The court ordered that the application to rely on fresh evidence made by the applicants was refused and that leave to appeal was refused.