Woolnough v Macrossan and Amiet Pty Ltd (ABN: 361 316 593 84) Trading as Macrossan and Amiet - [2016] QDC 20

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Woolnough v Macrossan and Amiet Pty Ltd (ABN: 361 316 593 84) Trading as Macrossan and Amiet [2016] QDC 20

PARTIES:

TIMOTHY EARL WOOLNOUGH

(appellant)

v

MACROSSAN AND AMIET PTY LTD (ABN: 361 316 593 84) TRADING AS MACROSSAN AND AMIET

(first respondent)

and

GENE PATTERSON

(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D 104/15

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

18 February 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 February 2016.

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

The appeal is struck out.1.

I will hear the parties on the question of costs.2.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL- LEAVE TO APPEAL- Whether important question of law or justice

Magistrates Courts Act 1921 (Q) s 45

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Q) schedule 3

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Q) rr 69, 292, 982

American Express International Inc. v Hewitt [1993] 2 Qd R 352

Gibson v Nominal Defendant [1996] QCA 240

COUNSEL:

Self- represented appellant.

Solicitors for the respondents.

SOLICITORS:

Self-represented appellant.
Macrossan and Amiet for the respondents.

Introduction

This is an application by the respondents to strike out the appellant’s appeal, or parts of the Notice of Appeal.

The appellant has sought to appeal the decision made in the Magistrates Court at Mackay on 8 September 2015 whereby the magistrate dismissed the appellant’s application to set aside a judgment.

Background
Pleadings

On 29 April 2015 the first respondent, a legal firm in Mackay, sued the appellant for $1,258.98 alleged to be monies owing by him to it for legal services provided. The statement of claim alleged that in or about February 2015 the appellant retained the first respondent to provide legal services to him and further legal services were provided in the period February to March 2015. As a result of this invoices were issued to him totalling $1,258.98. It was alleged that despite demand the appellant had failed to pay those fees.

The appellant filed a defence in June 2015 alleging that he had spoken to Gene Patterson (the second respondent) of Macrossan and Amiet regarding his legal case against the Isaac Regional Council. He alleges that he left documentation with Mr Patterson in relation to the case and within a couple of days heard from him in the form of a bill and, therefore, believes that he did not owe the money to the first respondent.

Hearing on 11 August 2015

The matter first came before the Magistrates Court on 11 August 2015 at which time the first respondent sought judgment pursuant to r 292 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (“UCPR”). Documents in support of application were served on or about 2 July 2015.[1] In a further affidavit Ms Roberts swore that the plaintiff had provided legal services to the appellant in the sum sought and he had refused to pay the sums. She deposed that the defence did not appear to disclose any reasonable action and no sufficient defence had been advanced.[2] The invoices addressed 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.

Continue reading Woolnough v Macrossan and Amiet Pty Ltd (ABN: 361 316 593 84...

Details

AGLC: Woolnough v Macrossan and Amiet Pty Ltd (ABN: 361 316 593 84) Trading as Macrossan and Amiet [2016] QDC 20
Case: [2016] QDC 20
Decision Date: 18 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in this matter was brought by Woolnough against Macrossan and Amiet Pty Ltd, a company trading as Macrossan and Amiet. The dispute arose from a decision made by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) which was subsequently upheld by the District Court. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, seeking leave to appeal on the grounds that there was an important question of law or justice involved. The appeal was against the findings made by QCAT and the District Court that the respondent had breached the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Q) by failing to provide Woolnough with a statement of account.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appeal raised an important question of law or justice. This involved examining whether the findings of QCAT and the District Court were correct, and whether there were any significant errors in law that warranted an appeal. The court needed to determine if the appeal presented a matter of broader public interest or if it was a matter that could be resolved by a single judicial decision.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal did not present an important question of law or justice. The appeal was considered to be an attempt to re-litigate issues that had already been decided by QCAT and the District Court. The Court noted that the appeal did not identify any significant errors in law that would warrant further consideration. The court relied on precedents such as American Express International Inc. v Hewitt and Gibson v Nominal Defendant, which established the criteria for leave to appeal. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the orders from QCAT and the District Court were upheld. The court will hear the parties on the issue of costs, indicating that the appeal was not only unsuccessful in its legal arguments but also in its financial implications.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is struck out.1.

I will hear the parties on the question of costs.2.

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.

CITATION:	Woolnough v Macrossan and Amiet Pty Ltd (ABN: 361 316 593 84) Trading as Macrossan and Amiet [2016] QDC 20
PARTIES:	TIMOTHY EARL WOOLNOUGH (appellant) v MACROSSAN AND AMIET PTY LTD (ABN: 361 316 593 84) TRADING AS MACROSSAN AND AMIET (first respondent) and GENE PATTERSON (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D 104/15
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Mackay
DELIVERED ON:	18 February 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 February 2016.
JUDGE:	Smith DCJA
ORDER:	The appeal is struck out.1. I will hear the parties on the question of costs.2.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL- LEAVE TO APPEAL- Whether important question of law or justice Magistrates Courts Act 1921 (Q) s 45 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Q) schedule 3 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Q) rr 69, 292, 982 American Express International Inc. v Hewitt [1993] 2 Qd R 352 Gibson v Nominal Defendant [1996] QCA 240
COUNSEL:	Self- represented appellant. Solicitors for the respondents.
SOLICITORS:	Self-represented appellant. Macrossan and Amiet for the respondents.