Wilson v James
[2014] QCATA 191
•23 July 2014
| CITATION: | Wilson v James [2014] QCATA 191 |
| PARTIES: | Duncan Lachlan Wilson (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| Eve James (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL488 -13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member Stilgoe, OAM |
| DELIVERED ON: | 23 July 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Leave to appeal refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – traffic accident – no issues of credit - whether grounds for leave to appeal Transport Operation (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 R 269 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 |
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 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Wilson parked his car on the side of the road, opened the door and was about the get out when Ms James’ car collided with the open door. Fortunately, Mr Wilson was not injured but he filed a claim for $2,200, for the cost of repairs to his car. Ms James filed a counterclaim for $4,638.60 for the damage to her car. An Adjudicator dismissed Mr Wilson’s claim and ordered Mr Wilson pay Ms James her claim.
Mr Wilson wants to appeal that decision. He says the learned Adjudicator erred in finding that a road user who opens the door of his car is liable “no matter what the width of the road or the other circumstances of the accident because of Regulation 269 of the Transport Operation (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009”. He says that the learned Adjudicator erred in not considering his version of events. He says the learned Adjudicator’s finding that Mr Wilson was responsible for the accident were inconsistent with his other findings of fact.
Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.[1] Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.[2]
[1]QCAT Act s 142(3)(a)(i).
[2]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 at [3] per Keane JA.
The learned Adjudicator, in his decision, stated[3] that Regulation 269 was “very important”. He did not say that Regulation 269 determined the issue “no matter what”. The learned Adjudicator went on to consider the evidence, what little of it there was.
[3]Transcript page 1-28, lines 25-28.
It is not a tribunal error to prefer one version of the facts to another, or to give more weight to the evidence of witness “A” than to witness “B”. Findings of fact will not usually be disturbed on appeal if the evidence supports the findings of fact by the original decision maker.[4] Where reasonable minds may differ, the appeals tribunal will not find an error simply because one possible conclusion was preferred to another possible conclusion.[5]
[4]Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 125-126.
[5]Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS & Another (2010) 240 CLR 611.
The learned Adjudicator found, as often happens, that both Mr Wilson and Ms James gave their evidence credibly. The learned Adjudicator had to assess which of the versions he thought more likely. He chose to believe Ms James.
The evidence can support the learned Adjudicator’s conclusion. There is nothing in the transcript to persuade me that he should have taken a different view of the facts.
There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Adjudicator was in error. Leave to appeal should be refused.
0
4
0