Voysey v Furness

[2012] QCATA 205

CITATION: Voysey v Furness [2012] QCATA 205

PARTIES:	Mervyn Voysey (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Dianna Joy Furness (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL218-12

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Justice Alan Wilson, President

DELIVERED ON: 11 October 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The application for leave to appeal is refused.

2.    The application for a stay is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where magistrate ordered appellant to pay minor debt claim in full – where appellant seeks leave to appeal that decision – where appellant seeks order staying effect pending that decision – whether magistrate committed a jurisdictional error

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 32

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

1. In 2010 Ms Furness was interested in undertaking a training course that would lead to a qualification enabling her to operate haul trucks at mining operations.

2. In May 2010 she spoke to Mr Voysey and, later, undertook a training course but claims she was never able to complete it because proper practical training, promised by him, was not provided.

3. She brought proceedings in QCAT’s minor civil disputes jurisdiction against both Mr Voysey and a company called Beta College Pty Ltd seeking the refund of $5,233.00 she had paid for the course, and her filing fees.

4. The matter came on for hearing before a Magistrate sitting as a QCAT Adjudicator on 30 May 2012.  Mr Voysey did not appear.  He sent a letter seeking an adjournment, which the learned Magistrate refused.  After hearing from Ms Furness, the learned Magistrate ordered that the ‘respondent’ (sic) pay her claim in full.

5. Mr Voysey seeks leave to appeal that decision.  He also seeks an order staying its effect pending the decision of the Appeal Tribunal, which directed that both applications be heard and determined on the papers.

6. Mr Voysey has filed written submissions through his solicitor.  In those submissions it is argued that the learned Magistrate committed a jurisdictional error by overlooking the fact that about a month earlier, in other proceedings, it had been found that Mr Voysey was not liable for a similar claim, and not guilty of any misleading or deceptive conduct in respect of that claim.  That earlier decision, it is submitted, created an ‘issue estoppel’ which prevented him from finding in Ms Furness’ favour in this case.

7. No copy of that earlier decision has been provided.  It is said that, in that case, only Beta College Pty Ltd was ordered to pay what the applicant there sought.  It is simply impossible to know what happened in that case or whether or not it involves a decision which effectively bound the learned Magistrate here.

8. The other case does seem, on what is said in submissions, to involve some of the same issues in the sense that Mr Voysey claims that all Ms Furness’ dealings were with the company and he was, personally, exposed to a judgment.  Save for that, Mr Voysey’s solicitors’ submissions are entirely unhelpful; the absence of a copy of the earlier decision, or more detailed information about the issues in it renders them unpersuasive.

9. On the evidence before the learned Magistrate, all Ms Furness’ personal dealings were with Mr Voysey and it was he who made representations to her about the nature and quality of the training she would receive in exchange for her payment.  There are some documents bearing the name of the company but, also, that of Mr Voysey.  There does not appear to be any receipt from the company or any contract between it, and Ms Furness.

10. In the circumstances it was reasonably open for the learned Magistrate to conclude that Ms Furness had dealings with Mr Voysey personally; that he made representations to her about the training, which were not fulfilled; and that, in the circumstances, she had a sustainable claim against him personally for the money she had paid.

11. Mr Voysey had the opportunity to appear at the hearing and resist the claim.  In circumstances where he did not do so, and Ms Furness presented evidence which, on its face, was sufficient to persuade the learned Magistrate that she was entitled to an order against him, no error of law is apparent and the application for leave to appeal must be refused.

12. It follows that Mr Voysey’s application for a stay must also be dismissed.