Best Auto Care Pty Ltd v Anaxus Info Tech Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] QCATA 116

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Best Auto Care Pty Ltd v Anaxus Info Tech Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] QCATA 116 PARTIES: BEST AUTO CARE PTY LTD (appellant) v ANAXUS INFO TECH PTY LTD (first respondent) And ANAXUS INFO TECH PTY LTD (second respondent) And TRIKON PTY LTD (third respondent) And ANAXUS HOLDINGS PTY LTD (fourth respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: APL084-24 ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S: Q1618-23 MATTER TYPE: Appeals DECISION MADE: 27 May 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Senior Member Lember ORDERS: Leave to appeal is refused. The application for leave to appeal or appeal is therefore dismissed. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – where application for a minor civil dispute consumer trader dispute – whether tribunal erred by misconstruing grounds of claim – whether tribunal relied on fabricated evidence – where leave to appeal refused -- 1 of 6 -- 2 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 28, s 142 Alderton & Anor v Wide Bay Constructions Pty Ltd [2017] QCATA 147 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 Greg Ritchie v Harcourts Broadbeach/Mermaid Waters [2024] QCATA 15 Hempel v Richardson & Wrench Hervey Bay [2018] QCATA 170 McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41 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). Each party filed written submissions. REASONS FOR DECISION What is this application about? [1] The appellant, Best Auto Care Pty Ltd (‘Best Auto Care’), engaged the respondents to create a website and to provide search engine optimisation services for its business. Its director, Mr Zahedi, says he signed the contract for the services because Mr Patel promised that it would ‘double my business’. [2] Mr Zahedi says that after he complained to the respondents, they cancelled the contract. As a result, Best Auto Care applied to QCAT for a refund of $15,000.00 it says it paid to the respondents before the contract was cancelled.1 [3] By a decision made on 21 February 2024, the Tribunal below dismissed Best Auto Care’s claim for relief. [4] Best Auto Care seeks leave to appeal and, if granted, to appeal that decision.2 The appeal jurisdiction [5] Parties require leave to appeal against a decision of the Tribunal in a minor civil dispute.3 [6] In determining whether to grant leave to appeal, the Appeal Tribunal must be satisfied that: (a) there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision;4 1 Application for minor civil dispute – consumer trader dispute filed 31 May 2023, Q1618-23. 2 Application for leave to appeal or appeal filed 27 March 2024. 3 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), s 142(3)(a)(i). 4 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41. -- 2 of 6 -- 3 (b) there is a reasonable prospect that the appellant will obtain substantive relief;5 and (c) leave is needed to correct a substantial injustice caused by the error;6 or (d) there is a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage.7 [7] The appeal process is not an opportunity for applicants to have their case automatically reheard.8 [8] Respectfully, this appears to be what Best Auto Care is seeking. The claim in Q1616-23 [9] In its originating application, Best Auto Care alleged that:9 (a) Mr Patel, and the companies Trikon Pty Ltd, Anaxus Info Tech Pty Ltd, and Anaxus Holdings Pty Ltd agreed to supply it with a ‘website/media marketing program which would double my business’. (b) It made monthly payments but ‘nothing ever happened’ and ‘material provided by the respondents did not have any affect on my business at all’. (c) The respondents breached their service contract as ‘they did not deliver what was promised or at all’. [10] It appears that Anaxus Info Tech Pty Ltd A.B.N. 31 635 329 912 (‘Anaxus’) was the party that contracted with Best Auto Care and rendered invoices to it. Ms Singh represented Anaxus in the proceeding and conceded the contractual arrangement between Best Auto Care and Anaxus. Ms Singh also represented Trikon Pty Ltd, although the relationship between Trikon Pty Ltd and Best Auto Care was never established. [11] Anaxus filed over sixty documents comprising screenshots of ‘All Web Site Data’ analytics over various dates between 2022 and 2023. According to the hearing transcript from 21 February 2024, these were painstakingly stepped through by the Tribunal below. [12] Mr Patel self-represented. His role at one time was as Chief Information Officer for Trikon Pty Ltd. It appears that Trikon Pty Ltd did sub-contracted work for Anaxus, but a contractual relationship between it and Best Auto Care was not established. Mr Patel represented himself, only at the hearing. [13] The role of Anaxus Holdings Pty Ltd does not appear to ever have been made clear in the proceeding. [14] On the evidence before the Tribunal below, the only correct respondent to the proceeding was Anaxus Info Tech Pty Ltd. 5 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232, [2]. 6 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41. 7 Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388, 389; McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577, 577, 580. 8 Hempel v Richardson & Wrench Hervey Bay [2018] QCATA 170, [14]. 9 Application for minor civil dispute – consumer trader dispute filed 31 May 2023, Part E ‘What are the reasons the order/s should be made?’. -- 3 of 6 -- 4 [15] The first instance decision did not turn on this. Rather, the Tribunal considered that Best Auto Care had not established, on a balance of probabilities, that the services provided by Anaxus did not result in the direction of traffic to Best Auto Care’s new website. In short, the application for minor civil dispute failed due to a lack of evidence from Best Auto Care to contradict the evidence filed by Anaxus in response. The grounds of appeal Ground 1 – The Tribunal misconstrued the basis of the claim, and therefore applied the wrong test in deciding it. (The Tribunal failed to consider whether the respondents’ services doubled the applicant’s earnings). [16] Best Auto Care says the Tribunal below erred by deciding the claim based on analytics about the traffic sent to Best Auto Care’s website, when the decision to be made was whether the respondents delivered what was promised, namely, a doubling of earnings, and, where the respondents did not tender evidence that they met the promise made to Best Auto Care, the claim should have been allowed. [17] There are several difficulties with this argument. [18] Firstly, Best Auto Care did not file material to support its argument about misrepresentation, nor that would establish loss even if misrepresentation was established. For example: (a) A copy of the contract was not filed – Mr Zahedi told the Tribunal that he lost his copy when his business flooded. (b) No evidence of representations made when the contract was entered into was filed – if they were in writing, rather than made orally. (c) No evidence of the payments made by Best Auto Care to the respondents (and in respect of which the refund was sought) was filed. This might have included, for example, a copy of the invoices rendered, receipts for payments made, bank statements evidencing transfer of funds or correspondence exchanged between the parties. (d) No evidence of the earnings of Best Auto Care before, and then after, the contract was entered into was filed. This might have included, for example, accounting, book-keeping, taxation, banking or other records. [19] This is even though the first scheduled hearing on 22 November 2023 was adjourned for the purpose of further material being filed. [20] Secondly, according to the hearing transcript, Mr Zahedi said as follows when he described how he came to enter into the contract (emphasis added):10 MR ZAHEDI: So what happened, one day I just receive a call from Sydney, and they say, “We will make you a website for all around – people around Australia, and we would like to make you a website, and if you interesting, we can send our rep to come to your shop, and then we will help you to make the website.” I said, “No, I don’t trust, because a lot of calls is scam, they call,” and they say, “No, we are genuine. We are based in Sydney. We – all work we do is guarantee 100 per cent,” and then I said – I just say first no, and then they call me second time. The second time they call me, I say, “Okay, just – I give it a 10 Hearing transcript, page 1-5, lines 25 to 47. -- 4 of 6 -- 5 go,” and one guy came to my shop, and then he says – he check all the website. He show me the websites, all the website – other websites. He say, “We built the website. We make this. We do this. We do this. We do this. We do this. In three months’ time, we guarantee your website comes on the top page of the Google.” I said, “Yes, that’s all I want. If my website page comes on the top of the Google, that’s all I want. If I don’t get a customer, still okay because I’m on the top page. There’s no people require services.” So every time I check myself – I sign a contract with these guys. I pay them the money, and everything was done, so I trust them. They say, “We promise you in three months’ time you will get the services – like, you will get the customer, and that’s it,” and I trust them. They say, “We guarantee you we will do that. We based in Australia, and our office is in Sydney and also Indooroopilly Shopping Centre,” so I trust them, and I sign a contract with them, and I pay them – when they make the website – they say, “We will make you a website and also logo and also business card.” [21] On cross-examination:11 ADJUDICATOR: You say that they didn’t work for you, you didn’t ever get a job. MR ZAHEDI: Yes. ADJUDICATOR: You say all you wanted was your website to be on Google page 1, and if it was there, you’d be satisfied. You say you’ve checked, and it’s never there. MR ZAHEDI: Yep. [22] Where Best Auto Care’s case is that a representation was made (and relied upon) that if Best Auto Care entered into the contract, its earnings would double, and where that representation was not made in writing, it could only be established by Mr Zahedi’s oral evidence. Mr Zahedi’s oral evidence made no mention of any such representation and in fact he stated that he only wanted traffic directed to the site and was not relying on or expecting Anaxus to ensure that the directed traffic would be converted to customers of his business. [23] Although the rules of evidence do not apply in the Tribunal,12 decision makers must still make their decisions based on evidence. The onus did not fall to the respondents to disprove the applicant’s case. Rather, as the applicant alleging breach of a contractual promise, the task fell to Best Auto Care to satisfy the Tribunal, on the balance of probabilities, that: (a) the respondents made the representation; (b) that Best Auto Care relied on it; (c) that the representation formed part of the contract; (d) that there was a breach of that representation; and (e) that Best Auto Care suffered loss as a consequence of the breach, entitling it to a refund or compensation for that loss. 11 Hearing transcript, page 1-8, lines 1-10. 12 QCAT Act, s 29(3)(b). -- 5 of 6 -- 6 [24] None of the abovementioned conclusions were established on the evidence. [25] The first ground of appeal is not made out. Ground 2 – The Tribunal erred by relying on ‘fake’ evidence filed by the respondents [26] Best Auto Care also alleges that the ‘wrong decision’ was made because ‘fake documents’ were tendered by Anaxus and relied upon by the Adjudicator. [27] With the application for leave to appeal and appeal, Best Auto Care filed what it describes as ‘the original report and the fake report’. Reports are filed and on top of one the following words are handwritten: ‘This is original report from hosting website’. [28] Nothing is written atop the other attachments. Where reports are duplicated, they appear to contain the same information. [29] Therefore, the first difficulty with this ground of appeal, is that it is simply not apparent from what Best Auto Care filed on appeal which document they say is the ‘fake’ report or what content differs between the versions of the reports filed. They all appear to establish that traffic was directed via certain keywords to Best Auto Care’s chosen website. [30] The second difficulty is that the reports relied upon by Anaxus were filed in the original proceeding on 22 December 2023, two months before the final hearing. If there was evidence available to Best Auto Care to contradict the reports, or to prove them to be falsified, that evidence ought to have been sought and filed before the 21 February 2024 hearing. [31] Leave is required to rely on new evidence in an appeal – and is usually only granted if it could not have been available with reasonable diligence for the original hearing.13 Even if leave to rely on new evidence had been sought, which it has not, it would not be granted for that reason. [32] The second ground of appeal also fails. Decision [33] There is no reasonably arguable case of error on either of the appeal grounds raised. Without an error by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that a substantial injustice has occurred.14 [34] Nor has it been suggested, nor am I satisfied that, there is a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage. [35] Leave to appeal is refused for these reasons and the application is dismissed. 13 Alderton & Anor v Wide Bay Constructions Pty Ltd [2017] QCATA 147, [7]. 14 Greg Ritchie v Harcourts Broadbeach/Mermaid Waters [2024] QCATA 15. -- 6 of 6 --