Voysey v Swift

[2012] QCATA 206

CITATION: Voysey v Swift [2012] QCATA 206

PARTIES:	Mervyn Voysey (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Judica Swift (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL217-12

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Justice Alan Wilson, President

DELIVERED ON: 15 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. This application for leave to appeal by Mr Voysey is markedly similar to another matter currently in the Appeal Tribunal: Voysey v Furness [2012] APL218-12.  Like the respondent in that case (Ms Furness), Ms Swift had conversations with Mr Voysey in around April 2010 about undertaking a course of training leading to qualifications and potential employment as a haul truck operator in the mining industry.

2. Ms Swift alleged the training was never provided and brought proceedings in the Magistrates Court against both Mr Voysey and Beta College Pty Ltd seeking a refund of the monies she paid, plus interest and costs.

3. Later, with the consent of all parties the matter was transferred to QCAT’s minor civil disputes jurisdiction and heard and determined by a Magistrate, sitting as a QCAT Adjudicator, on 22 June 2012.  The Magistrate who heard and determined the matter was the same Magistrate who heard and determined Ms Furness’ application.

4. As in that case Mr Voysey did not appear but sought an adjournment which the learned Magistrate refused, with reasons.  He then went on to hear Ms Swift’s evidence and allowed her claim of $6,214.05 and also awarded her $95.00 filing fees.  An order was made against both Mr Voysey and the College.

5. Mr Voysey seeks leave to appeal that decision on grounds which mirror those advanced by his lawyers to the Appeal Tribunal in the Furness matter.  The submissions suffer from the same shortcomings discussed in the judgment in that case: they purport to raise an issue estoppel based upon an earlier decision which is not, however, provided (and which Ms Swift says is, in any event, distinguishable on its facts).

6. More cogently it is argued that all Ms Swift’s dealing were in truth with the company and Mr Voysey is not personably liable.

7. Mr Voysey’s application for leave to appeal suffers from the same shortcomings as the earlier matter.  There is no evidence of any receipt from the company for the monies Ms Swift paid, or any written contract between her and the company.  There are documents which bear both the company name, and Mr Voysey’s.  As pleaded in the Magistrates Court, Ms Swift alleged that representations made by Mr Voysey on his own behalf (or as a representative of the company) were false and the contract was never performed in the sense that the training was not provided.

8. The learned Magistrate held that Ms Swift, through her oral and written evidence, had established those matters and was entitled to an order in her favour.  Nothing in the submissions advanced from Mr Voysey suggest any error on the part of the learned Magistrate, or that the decision he made was not reasonably open on the evidence before him.

9. For these reasons the application for leave to appeal must be refused.  It follows that Mr Voysey’s application for a stay must also be dismissed.