Vivlios v The Harris Group - [2020] QCATA 155

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Vivlios & Anor v The Harris Group [2020] QCATA 155

PARTIES: JIM VIVLIOS and ANOR

(Applicants)

v

THE HARRIS GROUP

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL004-20
APL 005-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO:

MCDT 548 of 2019 Southport
MCDT 549 of 2019 Southport

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

26 October 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr J R Forbes, Member

ORDERS:
The applications for leave to appeal numbered APL004 of 2020 and APL005 of 2020 are dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES - where agreements for the provision of professional accountancy services in connection with company liquidation – where applicants directors of the company – where applicants deny personal liability – where further and better particulars ordered – where applicants deny receipt of same – where denial rejected – where evidence for accountant includes part payments and admissions of liability – where findings of Tribunal well supported in evidence – where nature and limitations of leave to applications summarised – where no reasonable prospects of successful appeals – where applications for leave dismissed

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32, s 52, s 142

Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139

Daintrey, Re; Ex parte Holt [1893] 2 QB 136

Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Robinson v Corr [2011] QCATA 302

Wilson v Kingsgate Mining Industries Pty Ltd [1973] 2 NSWLR 713

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

These matters were heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Harris Group (`Harris’) sues Jim Vivlios and his wife Ligeri Vivlios (`the Vivlios’) for professional accountancy fees. Harris alleges that those fees are due and payable for its services to them personally[1] in connection with an official liquidator’s inquiry into their dealings as officers of a family company.
[1]Transcript of hearing 3 December 2019 (`T’) page 13 line 44, page 14 line 14.
The primary proceedings (MCD548/19 versus Jim, and MCDT549/19 versus Ligeri) were tried jointly at Southport on 3 December 2019. The same arrangement applies to these applications.[2]
[2]Appeal Tribunal directions 21 February 2020 paragraph 2.
The Tribunal awarded Harris $12,877.38 against Jim Vivlios and $17,599.91 against Ligeri Vivlios, with costs in each case.
The Vivlios both seek leave to appeal[3] against those decisions. The evidence and the proposed grounds of appeal are the same in each case:
(a)An application for Miscellanous Matters was not dealt with, which amounted to a denial of procedural fairness, also described as natural justice.
(b)The Tribunal’s findings of personal liability are in error.
(c)The Tribunal erred in not adopting the `weight of evidence’ [sic] supplied in an affidavit of Bill Vivlios, father of Jim, filed on behalf of the Applicants.
(d)Harris failed to comply with an order to give particulars made on 15 October 2019,…

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 Vivlios v The Harris Group

Details

AGLC: Vivlios v The Harris Group [2020] QCATA 155
Case: [2020] QCATA 155
Decision Date: 26 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Vivlios v The Harris Group involved the directors of a company, who were also the applicants, appealing against a decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had ordered the directors to pay debts owed to Vivlios, a professional services provider, for accountancy services rendered during a company liquidation. The applicants denied personal liability for these debts and sought leave to appeal the Tribunal's decision. The central legal issues were whether the applicants were personally liable for the debts owed to Vivlios and if the Tribunal's findings were supported by evidence.

The court considered whether there were reasonable prospects of successfully appealing the Tribunal's findings. It found that the Tribunal's decision was well-supported by the evidence, including the applicants' part payments and admissions of debt, which contradicted their denials of personal liability. The court also noted that the nature and limitations of leave to appeal applications were clearly outlined, and there was no reasonable prospect of demonstrating appellable error in the Tribunal's reasons.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of successful appeals. The applications for leave to appeal numbered APL004 of 2020 and APL005 of 2020 were dismissed. This decision upheld the Tribunal's findings that the directors were personally liable for the debts owed to Vivlios.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applications for leave to appeal numbered APL004 of 2020 and APL005 of 2020 are dismissed.

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

There was ample evidence to support those findings in the oral and documentary evidence of Harris, and in the fact of part payments, and in the admissions of debt that accompanied them.[28] Those acts of the Applicants refute their denials of personal liability and their professed belief that Vivlios senior paid their debts in full.[29] [28]T page 55 line 45, page 59 line 41[29]As the Adjudicator observed at T page 62 line 16.Conclusion There is no reasonable prospect of demonstrating appellable error in the reasons of the primary Tribunal. Accordingly leave to appeal must in each case be refused,

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.