Wrights Electrical Services v Monazeh

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Wrights Electrical Services v Monazeh [2019] QCATA 171

PARTIES:

WRIGHTS ELECTRICAL SERVICES

(appellant)       

v

ABBAS MONAZEH

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL143-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO230/19

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

18 December 2019

HEARING DATE:

11 December 2019

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Hughes

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where fresh evidence – where not explanation for not obtaining evidence earlier – where little evidential value – interference with findings of Tribunal below – functions of appellate tribunal – where no valid ground of appeal raised – where findings open on evidence – where no reasonably arguable case of Tribunal in error – where no reasonable prospect of substantive relief on appeal

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 121

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175

Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39

Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232

Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404

Creek v Raine & Horne Mossman [2011] QCATA 226

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

Piric & Anor v Claudia Tillier Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 152

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]           Abbas Monazeh contracted Wrights Electrical Services to do electrical work. Wrights did some of the work. Mr Monazeh claimed they did not finish the job. He obtained a quote to finish for $4,389.00. Two Justices of the Peace ordered Wrights pay this to Mr Monazeh plus his filing fee of $120.50. 

[2]           Wrights has applied for leave to appeal that decision.

[3]           This extract from the original hearing captures the crux of the learned Justices’ decision (my emphasis):

…there is a work authorisation form that was altered by Mr Mon, contains two clauses that weren’t in your original one, and were sent back to Wright before any work was commenced. Whiles I accept your evidence that it wasn’t signed by Wright Electrical, by their conduct they have indicated that they accepted the terms of that work authorisation.

[4]           As part of its appeal, Wrights filed an email that it claims proves the scope of the work was limited to reticulation only.

[5]           The email is fresh evidence. The Appeal Tribunal will only accept fresh evidence if it was not reasonably available at the time the proceeding was heard and determined. Ordinarily, an applicant for leave to adduce fresh evidence must satisfy three tests:

(a) Could the parties have obtained the evidence with reasonable diligence for use at the trial?

(b) If allowed, would the evidence probably have an important impact on the result of the case?

(c) Is the evidence credible?

[6]           The email was only obtained…