Eldridge v Frost [2014] QCATA 142

CITATION: Eldridge v Frost [2014] QCATA 142 PARTIES: Penelope Eldridge (Applicant/Appellant) v Karen Frost (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: APL174-14 MATTER TYPE: Appeals HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Senior Member Stilgoe, OAM DELIVERED ON: 16 June 2014 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: 1. Leave to appeal refused CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where applicant alleged oral agreement – where tribunal had no jurisdiction unless an oral agreement existed – where tribunal found an oral agreement existed – whether grounds for leave to appeal Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 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 [1] Ms Eldridge and Ms Frost were neighbours. They both owned cats. Ms Eldridge’s cat attacked and injured Ms Frost’s cat. Ms Frost incurred vet’s bills. She filed a claim in the minor disputes jurisdiction of the tribunal, seeking an order that Ms Eldridge pay those bills. Ms Frost told the tribunal that Ms Eldridge had agreed to pay some of those bills, so she -- 1 of 2 -- 2 was claiming a debt due. Ms Eldridge denied that there was any agreement and, on that basis, submitted that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the dispute. [2] Two Justices of the Peace, sitting in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction, found that there was an agreement between the ladies, found that the tribunal did have jurisdiction, and ordered Ms Eldridge pay Ms Frost $690.65. [3] Ms Eldridge wants to appeal that decision. She again denies any agreement and, therefore, denies the tribunal has jurisdiction. [4] Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary. The principles the appeals tribunal applies when considering an application for leave to appeal are as summarised by Keane JA (as His Honour then was) in Pickering v McArthur1: There are numerous authorities, in varying language but with unvarying emphasis, that 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. [5] The appeal tribunal will not usually disturb findings of fact on appeal if the evidence is capable of supporting the conclusions.2 An appellate tribunal may interfere if the conclusion is ‘contrary to compelling inferences’ in the case.3 [6] The learned Justices of the Peace took sworn evidence from both Ms Eldridge and Ms Frost. I read the transcript carefully. As might be expected, Ms Frost’s version of conversations is quite different from Ms Eldridge‘s version of the same conversation. The learned Justices had to decide which version was more likely. [7] The learned Justices found that Ms Eldridge’s cat had inflicted injury on Ms Frost’s cat, despite Ms Eldridge’s denial. In coming to that conclusion, the learned Justices considered documents filed with the Gold Coast City Council in 2011 and 2012. Having made that finding, the learned Justices’ decision to prefer Ms Frost’s evidence generally is unsurprising. [8] The evidence supports the learned Justices’ decision and there is nothing in the transcript to persuade me that the learned Justices should have taken a different view of the facts. There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Justices were in error. Leave to appeal should be refused. 1 [2005] QCA 294 at [3]. 2 Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 at 561; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 125-126. 3 Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 at 10. -- 2 of 2 --