Avoca Smash Repairs v Coachman and Company

CITATION:

Avoca Smash Repairs v Coachman and Company [2011] QCATA 17

APPELLANT:	Coachman and Company (Applicant/Appellant)
v
RESPONDENT:	Avoca Smash Repairs (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL257-10

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Fleur Kingham, Acting President

DELIVERED ON:

31 January 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS :

APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL – whether leave should be granted – where no error of fact or law alleged – where judgement based on applicant’s admission – where potential remedy of re-opening proceedings

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 ss137, 142(3)(a)(i)

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Avoca Smash Repairs was partially successful in its claim for the value of work performed on motor vehicles owned by Coachman and Company. It claimed $8,662.60 and obtained a judgment for $3,201.00, based on the admission made by the representative for Coachman and Company (David Cahill). Coachman and Company now say Mr Cahill made a mistake in admitting that it owing that sum. Mr Cahill has filed submissions in which he states that the company’s accountant has now calculated only $384.00 is owing. Coachman and Company has not provided a statement from the accountant or sought leave to adduce further evidence about the matter.

There is no right to appeal a Minor Civil Dispute decision. Leave must be granted[1]. The matter raised by the applicant does not reveal any basis upon which to grant leave. It does not allege there was any error of law or fact in the decision made by the learned Magistrate. Nor is there any issue of which appellate consideration would be to the benefit of the public.
[1] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 142(3)(a)(i).

In effect, Coachman and Company is seeking leave to withdraw its admission and re-litigate the claim. An appeal is not the proper forum for doing so.

It may well be that the applicant could apply to reopen the original proceedings. An application to reopen a proceeding may be granted if a party would suffer a sustainable injustice if it were not reopened, because significant new evidence has arisen and the evidence was not reasonably available when the proceeding was first heard and decided[2]. It is not appropriate to comment on the prospects of that application succeeding, not the least because it is not clear on what basis Mr Cahill made his admission, or when he consulted the accountant or why he could not have done so in time for the initial hearing.
[2] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 137.

Avoca Smash Repairs may well support an application to reopen proceedings. In its submissions, it states it has evidence to substantiate the full amount claimed. It may welcome an opportunity to have that material considered by QCAT so that its entire claim could be reconsidered.

This is not an appropriate case in which to grant leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Avoca Smash Repairs sought leave to appeal against a decision of the District Court, which had dismissed their claim for damages against Coachman and Company. The dispute involved a claim for damages following an accident between a vehicle owned by Avoca and a vehicle owned by Coachman and Company. The District Court found in favour of Coachman and Company and dismissed Avoca's claim on the basis of Avoca's admission that it had not provided adequate evidence to support its claim. The Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether it should grant leave to appeal, given that no error of fact or law was alleged, and that the judgement was based on an admission by Avoca.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether it should grant leave to appeal in the absence of any allegation of error of fact or law. The Court considered the potential remedy of re-opening the proceedings, which would involve a re-hearing of the case, including the possibility of Avoca being ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis. The Court noted that Avoca had admitted that it had not provided adequate evidence to support its claim, and that the District Court's decision was based on that admission. The Court concluded that there was no basis for granting leave to appeal, given that there was no allegation of error of law or fact, and that the potential remedy of re-opening the proceedings would not be in the interests of justice.

The Court of Appeal held that leave to appeal should be refused. The Court noted that Avoca had admitted that it had not provided adequate evidence to support its claim, and that the District Court's decision was based on that admission. The Court held that there was no basis for granting leave to appeal in the absence of any allegation of error of fact or law. The Court further held that the potential remedy of re-opening the proceedings would not be in the interests of justice, as it would involve a re-hearing of the case, including the possibility of Avoca being ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis. The Court therefore refused leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal. The decision of the District Court stands.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established