Strategic Developments Logan Pty Ltd v Brian Johnston Plan Design Pty Ltd - [2023] QCATA 37

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Strategic Developments Logan Pty Ltd v Brian Johnston Plan Design Pty Ltd [2023] QCATA 37

PARTIES:

STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENTS LOGAN PTY LTD

(appellant)

v

BRIAN JOHNSTON PLAN DESIGN PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL305-21

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO516/20 (Brisbane)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

6 April 2023

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Gordon

ORDERS:

1. The name of the appellant is corrected on the record of the Appeal Tribunal to Strategic Developments Logan Pty Ltd.

2. Leave to appeal is refused. This means the appeal fails.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN NO APPEAL LIES – where the appellant seeks to appeal against a decision made by a tribunal Adjudicator in a minor civil dispute – where the appellant puts fresh evidence before the Appeal Tribunal on an informal basis – whether appeal could succeed

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

This is an appeal brought by Strategic Developments Logan Pty Ltd against a decision made by a tribunal Adjudicator in a minor civil dispute.
Strategic says that the Adjudicator made a number of errors and omissions both factual and technical.
The Adjudicator made the decision after hearing the parties and reading their documents in a hearing on 15 July 2021. What transpired at the hearing can be understood from a transcript obtained by the Appeal Tribunal. Strategic was represented at the hearing by Alan Thompson who was a director of that company, and the applicant in the minor civil dispute, Brian Johnston Plan Design Pty Ltd, was represented by its director Brian Johnston.
Prior to the hearing, each party had submitted written material to the tribunal.[1] At the hearing, each party gave evidence. Strategic handed to the Adjudicator a further document.[2] Despite this, the Adjudicator decided that more evidence was needed to enable a fair decision to be made. The Adjudicator offered the parties a further hearing when such additional material could be considered, but Mr Thompson said that he did not want to attend a further hearing but preferred to have the matter dealt with on the papers after submitting further evidence and making further submissions.[3] This proposal was agreed, and the Adjudicator made an order that each party was able to submit further material by 30 July 2021.
[1]In the case of Strategic, in addition to the formal response it can be seen from the file that material was provided to the tribunal on 8 June 2021 (survey plan), 15 June 2021 (various documents said to show that the applicant to the minor civil dispute claim had failed to perform its obligations), four emails on 8 July 2021 (with statutory declaration made by a town planner, and other documents), 11 July 2021 (with copy brochure and project summary statement).
[2]A quotation: transcript 1-6.
[3]Transcript 1-39.
The hearing lasted…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Strategic Developments Logan Pty Ltd v Brian Johnston Plan D... and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] QCATA 37
Decision Date: 6 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Strategic Developments Logan Pty Ltd v Brian Johnston Plan Design Pty Ltd, the appellant, Strategic Developments Logan Pty Ltd, sought to appeal against a decision made by a tribunal Adjudicator in a minor civil dispute. The original dispute involved a claim for payment of a debt. The respondent, Brian Johnston Plan Design Pty Ltd, opposed the appeal and argued that the appeal should be dismissed due to procedural errors and the introduction of fresh evidence by the appellant before the Appeal Tribunal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's appeal could succeed given that it was an appeal from a decision made by a tribunal Adjudicator in a minor civil dispute, and whether the appeal could be allowed when the appellant had presented fresh evidence on an informal basis to the Appeal Tribunal. The court had to determine whether these circumstances allowed for the appeal to proceed.

The court held that the appeal could not succeed. It found that the appeal was from a decision made by a tribunal Adjudicator in a minor civil dispute, and under Queensland law, no appeal lies from such decisions. Furthermore, the court noted that the appellant had put fresh evidence before the Appeal Tribunal in an informal manner, which was not permissible under the rules. These findings led the court to conclude that the appeal was not valid and should be dismissed.

Accordingly, the court made orders correcting the appellant's name on the Appeal Tribunal's records and refusing leave to appeal, effectively dismissing the appeal. The appellant's appeal against the original decision of the tribunal Adjudicator was therefore unsuccessful.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The name of the appellant is corrected on the record of the Appeal Tribunal to Strategic Developments Logan Pty Ltd.

2. Leave to appeal is refused. This means the appeal fails.

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.