Whiz Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rosen - [2025] QCATA 47

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Whiz Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rosen [2025] QCATA 47

PARTIES:

WHIZ ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

(applicant/appellant)

v

SHAUN ROSEN

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL014-24

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

Q2006-23

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

8 May 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Goodman

ORDERS:

1.     Leave to appeal is granted insofar as it relates to the amount payable by Whiz Enterprises Pty Ltd.

2.     The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the amount payable by Whiz Enterprises Pty Ltd.

3.     The Order dated 14 November 2023 is set aside insofar as it relates to the amount payable by Whiz Enterprises Pty Ltd.

4.     The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to be determined by a differently constituted Tribunal.

5.     The parties are to file and serve any evidence they wish to rely upon at the rehearing of the issue no later than two weeks prior to the hearing.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW HEARING – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – leave to appeal – where adjudicator failed to provide adequate reasons for the calculation of amount payable by the appellant

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142(3)(a)(i), s 143

Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232

Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2

Qd R 388
Hempel v Richardson & Wrench Hervey Bay [2018] QCATA 170
QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41

McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia

Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Rosen purchased a golf cart from Whiz Enterprises Pty Ltd (‘Whiz’) for use in Fiji. After owning the cart for just over three months, Mr Rosen reported that it had stopped working. Whiz claimed that something must have happened to cause damage to the cart. Mr Rosen claimed that there was no incident which caused it to stop working.
Proceedings were brought in the tribunal and on 14 November 2023, an adjudicator ordered that Whiz pay Mr Rosen $10,781.22. Whiz seeks to appeal that decision.
I note that on 23 August 2023, Whiz had sought leave to be represented on the basis that the matter involves a “jurisdictional issue”. On 9 November 2023, that application was refused by the tribunal.
An appeal against a decision by the tribunal in a proceeding for a minor civil dispute may be made only if the party has obtained the appeal tribunal’s leave to appeal.[1] By application dated 16 January 2024, Whiz has applied for leave to appeal the adjudicator’s decision[2], and, if leave is granted, to appeal against the adjudicator’s decision.
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) s 142(3)(a)(i).
[2]Ibid s 143.
The appeal process is not an opportunity for applicants to…

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 Whiz Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rosen 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: [2025] QCATA 47
Decision Date: 8 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Whiz Enterprises Pty Ltd sought leave to appeal against a decision of an adjudicator, with a particular focus on the amount it was required to pay. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the adjudicator had erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for the calculation of the amount payable by Whiz Enterprises Pty Ltd. The appellant argued that the lack of clear reasoning rendered the decision unjust and potentially unlawful.

The court was required to determine if the adjudicator's failure to provide adequate reasons constituted a legal error warranting an appeal. The appellant contended that the absence of detailed reasoning meant that the adjudicator had not properly exercised the discretion afforded to them, thus contravening the principles of natural justice. The respondent argued that the adjudicator's decision, although not perfectly articulated, was not so flawed as to warrant an appeal. The court had to balance the need for procedural fairness with the principle that not every error in reasoning will automatically lead to a successful appeal.

The court found that the adjudicator's failure to provide adequate reasons did indeed amount to a legal error, as it undermined the transparency and fairness of the decision-making process. The court held that the lack of detailed reasoning made it impossible to determine whether the adjudicator had properly considered all relevant factors. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the original order was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to be heard by a different panel, with the parties required to submit any evidence they wish to rely upon at the rehearing within two weeks prior to the hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is granted insofar as it relates to the amount payable by Whiz Enterprises Pty Ltd.

2. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the amount payable by Whiz Enterprises Pty Ltd.

3. The Order dated 14 November 2023 is set aside insofar as it relates to the amount payable by Whiz Enterprises Pty Ltd.

4. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to be determined by a differently constituted Tribunal.

5. The parties are to file and serve any evidence they wish to rely upon at the rehearing of the issue no later than two weeks prior to the hearing.

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.