You're Secure v George - [2014] QCATA 258

CITATION:

You’re Secure v George [2014] QCATA 258

PARTIES:	You’re Secure (Appellant)
v
Angelia Louisa George (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL350-14

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Acting Senior Member Paratz

DELIVERED ON:

3 September 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application to stay the decision is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION TO STAY DECISION UNDER APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – whether grounds for stay established – where a claim by consumer for refund for security screens and flyscreens – where no justification for a stay was shown

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 145(2)

Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v The Myer Emporium Ltd (No 1) (1986) 160 CLR 220
JC Scott Constructions v Mermaid Waters Tavern Pty Ltd (No 2) [1983] 2 Qd R 255
Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685
Jennings v Design and Procure Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 36

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

Ms George contracted with You’re Secure for the supply of security screen windows, doors and flyscreens at her rental property at Redbank Plains in Queensland.
She brought an application in the Tribunal on 4 June 2014 for refund of the money paid by her of $1,044.00 plus filing fees of $101.40.
You’re Secure have removed the security screens and fly screens from the property.
The Tribunal, composed of two Justices of the Peace, made an Order on 23 July 2014 that You’re Secure pay to Ms George the sum of $1,000.00 within 28 days.
You’re Secure filed an Application for leave to appeal or appeal on 19 August 2014 in respect of the decision.
You’re Secure also filed an Application to stay the decision on 19 August 2014. Directions were made as to filing of submissions, and for an On the Papers determination of the application not before 1 September 2014. Submissions were received, and this is the decision on the stay application.
This Tribunal has power to make an order staying the operation of a decision being appealed against, until that appeal is finally decided: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act), s 145(2).
The normal rule is that a litigant is entitled to the ‘fruits’ of the litigation, a phrase which typically includes a judgment.[1] While it has been suggested that an applicant for a stay must establish ‘special circumstances’[2] before an order will be made, it has also been said that the discretion is unfettered and that the applicant must demonstrate a basis for a stay, with particular emphasis upon such matters as the balance of convenience, and the competing rights of the parties.[3]
[1]Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v The Myer Emporium Ltd (No 1) (1986) 160 CLR 220 at 222-3 per Dawson J.
[2]JC Scott Constructions v Mermaid Waters Tavern Pty Ltd…

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 You're Secure v George 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: [2014] QCATA 258
Decision Date: 3 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of You're Secure v George involved an application by the defendant, George, to stay a decision made in a minor civil dispute. George sought a stay of the decision under appeal, which related to a consumer claim for a refund of security screens and flyscreens. The court was tasked with determining whether the grounds for a stay had been established.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether George had demonstrated sufficient justification for the stay of the decision under appeal. The court considered the criteria for granting a stay and evaluated whether the circumstances of the case warranted such a stay.

After thorough consideration, the court found that George had not provided a justification sufficient to warrant a stay of the decision. The court concluded that the application to stay the decision was not justified and therefore refused the application. This decision upheld the original ruling in the minor civil dispute, which required George to refund the consumer for the security screens and flyscreens.

The court's ruling was clear and concise, confirming that the application to stay the decision was refused. This outcome ensured that the consumer's rights were protected, and the decision in the minor civil dispute remained in effect.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to stay the decision is 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.