Willliams v McConochie - [2013] QCATA 314

CITATION:

Willliams & Anor v McConochie & Anor [2013] QCATA 314

PARTIES:	Mr Steven Williams Mrs Katrina Williams (Applicants)
v
Mr Terrance McConochie Mrs Dawn McConochie (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL246 -13

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Stilgoe OAM

DELIVERED ON:

11 November 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – whether grounds for leave to appeal

Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388

McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577
Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The appeal tribunal heard and determined this matter on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr and Mrs McConochie rented a rural property from Mr and Mrs Williams. When they left, they owed about six weeks’ rent, so Mr and Mrs Williams filed a claim in the tribunal. At the hearing, Mr and Mrs McConochie claimed for damage to their car, which occurred when the ceiling of the shed fell onto it. Two Justices of the Peace, sitting in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the tribunal, found that Mr and Mrs McConochie did owe rent but offset their claim for damage to the car.
Mr and Mrs Williams wants to appeal that learned JPs’ decision. They say that they had no notice of the claim for damage to the car. They say that Mr and Mrs McConochie should have paid for the cleaning costs. They say that the damage to the car is based up on a single quote which has a number of errors.
Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary. The question whether or not leave to appeal should be granted is usually addressed according to established principles. Is there a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision?[1] Is there a reasonable prospect that the applicant will obtain substantive relief?[2] Is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice caused by some error?[3] Is there a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the appeals tribunal, would be to the public advantage?[4]
[1]        QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[2]        Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 at 2.
[3]        QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[4]Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 at 389; McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v…

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 Willliams v McConochie

Details

AGLC: Willliams v McConochie [2013] QCATA 314
Case: [2013] QCATA 314
Decision Date: 11 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal arose from a minor civil dispute between Williams and McConochie. The nature of the dispute centred on the interpretation of a contractual term in a lease agreement between the two parties. The lower court had already delivered its judgment in favour of one party, and the appellant sought leave to appeal that decision to the higher court.

The primary legal issue before the higher court was whether the grounds for leave to appeal existed. The appellant contended that the lower court had erred in its interpretation of the lease agreement, which had significant implications for the outcome of the case. The respondent argued that the appeal was without merit and should be dismissed due to the minor nature of the dispute and the absence of any substantial legal question.

The higher court examined the grounds for leave to appeal and considered whether the appeal presented a substantial question of law of general public importance. The court noted that the dispute involved a relatively minor amount of money and did not raise any novel or complex legal issues. The higher court was of the opinion that the appeal did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal as it did not involve a significant question of law or public importance. Consequently, the higher court dismissed the appellant's application for leave to appeal.

The higher court made an order refusing the appellant leave to appeal the decision of the lower court. This meant that the original judgment of the lower court stood as the final determination of the dispute between the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal refused

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.