Zahel Pty Ltd atf Re & BF Wilson Family Trust t/as Deluxe Chauffered Cars v David Farrell t/as Shamrock Limousines and Transfers

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Zahel Pty Ltd atf RE & BF Wilson Family Trust t/as Deluxe Chauffered Cars v David Farrell t/as Shamrock Limousines and Transfers [2022] QCATA 113

PARTIES:

ZAHEL PTY LTD ATF RE & BF WILSON FAMILY TRUST T/AS DELUXE CHAUFFERED CARS

(appellant)

v

DAVID FARRELL T/AS SHAMROCK LIMOUSINES AND TRANSFERS

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL329-21

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO1248-17

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

25 July 2022

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member PG Stilgoe OAM

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – leave to appeal – minor civil dispute – where no error in the tribunal’s decision was identified – where appellant claimed it was an only agent for a disclosed principal – where appellant was not found to be an agent – where a party was interstate but the contract was formed in and the work done in Queensland – where the a party was entitled to be paid in Queensland

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 142(3), s 32

Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1

Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Barbara Wilson is the effective controller of Zahel Pty Ltd, atf RE & BF Wilson Family Trust t/as Deluxe Chauffeured Cars. Her daughter is Heather Wilson. Heather, trading as Deluxe Chauffeured Cars Queensland Pty Ltd used to subcontract driving jobs to David Farrell, trading as Shamrock Limousines and Transfers. Heather was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and she moved to Western Australia to live with, and be cared for by, her mother Barbara Wilson. Deluxe Chauffeured Cars Queensland Pty Ltd was deregistered on 19 December 2017.
Heather, Barbara and Mr Farrell had a meeting on 13 March 2017. They agreed that Mr Farrell would keep driving for “Deluxe”. Barbara said she offered to process invoices for Heather because she was unwell. She said she made it very clear that she was not assuming any liability for Heather’s debt and was simply assisting with the bookkeeping.
Mr Farrell has a different recollection of that meeting. He says Barbara was helping Heather wind up her business. From that point on, he thought that Barbara, trading as Deluxe Chauffeured Cars, was making the payments.
Mr Farrell did drive for, and invoice, Deluxe Chauffeured Cars. He wasn’t paid so he brought proceedings against Deluxe Chauffeured Cars. As Zahel is the entity behind that trading name, the tribunal ordered Zahel pay Mr Farrell $11,100.85.
Zahel wants to appeal that decision. 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]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, s 142(3)(a)(i).
[2]Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 at [3].
Zahel submits there are two grounds of appeal. Firstly, it says that the tribunal erred in fact and law by finding that there was an agreement that it would pay Mr Farrell for driving jobs. Secondly, it submits that the tribunal erred in fact and law by failing to find that Zahel acted as agent for a disclosed principal, Deluxe Chauffeured Cars Queensland Pty Ltd.
Mr Farrell filed a number of documents in support of his submission that Barbara, as Zahel, was the appropriate respondent in the proceedings. He submitted a series of emails between himself and Barbara which confirmed the arrangement. He attached an email from Barbara where she asked him to send his invoices to accounts@chauffeuredcars.com.au. He submitted copies of invoices, all addressed to Deluxe Chauffeured Cars.
Heather and Barbara filed responses to Mr Farrell’s claim. They both said, simply, that neither of them was the proprietor of Deluxe Chauffeured Cars.
Barbara appeared at the hearing. She had two arguments. The first was that Mr Farrell knew he was trading with Heather. The second was that Zahel could not trade in Queensland as it was only licensed in Western Australia. Barbara said that Mr Farrell’s emails did not reflect the terms of their discussions.
Findings of fact by a Tribunal will not usually be disturbed on appeal if the facts inferred by the Tribunal, upon which the finding is based, are capable of supporting its conclusions, and there is evidence capable of supporting any inferences underlining it.[3]
[3]Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 [561]; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 [125]-[126].
An appellate tribunal may interfere, however, if the conclusion at first instance is ‘contrary to compelling inferences’ in the case.[4] As the High Court said in Fox v Percy:
In such circumstances, the appellate court is not relieved of its statutory function by the fact the trial judge has, expressly or implicitly, reached a conclusion influenced by an opinion concerning the credibility of witnesses. In such a case, making all due allowances for the advantages available to the trial judge, the appellate court must “not shrink from giving effect to” its own conclusion.[5]
[4]Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 [10].
[5]Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 [128] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Kirby JJ).
The tribunal carefully considered the evidence available. It found that all relevant communications came from Zahel.[6] It found that Barbara was not a convincing witness.[7]
[6]T1-46, 15 – 35.
[7]T1-46, 44 – T1-47, 8.
The tribunal was aware of, and dealt with, the fact that Zahel did not have a licence to trade in Queensland. It made the point that the work was done in Queensland and the contract was formed in Queensland.[8] The tribunal found,[9] correctly, that the lack of a licence was a matter for Zahel. Mr Farrell was entitled to be paid in Queensland.
[8]T1-47, 32 – 39.
[9]T1-47, 41 – 44.
The evidence can support the tribunal’s finding and I can find no reasons to come to a contrary view.

Orders

Leave to appeal should be refused.

Zahel Pty Ltd, trading as Deluxe Chauffered Cars, and the BF Wilson Family Trust, acting on behalf of the appellant, were in dispute with David Farrell, trading as Shamrock Limousines and Transfers. The matter was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the appellant sought to appeal a decision made by a tribunal regarding a minor civil dispute. The appellant argued that it was an agent for a disclosed principal and that the contract was formed and the work performed in Queensland. However, the tribunal found that the appellant was not an agent, and the contract was validly formed and executed in Queensland.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the relationship between the parties, specifically whether the appellant was an agent for a disclosed principal, and the jurisdictional aspects of the contract and the work performed. The court needed to determine whether the tribunal's findings were correct and if the appellant was entitled to payment in Queensland.

The court considered the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It found that the tribunal had correctly identified that the appellant was not an agent and that the contract was validly formed and executed in Queensland. The court further determined that there was no error in the tribunal's decision and that the appellant had not demonstrated any grounds for an appeal. Consequently, the court refused the appellant's application for leave to appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and no further orders were made.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established