Dean v Mayers [2013] QCATA 286

CITATION: Dean v Mayers [2013] QCATA 286 PARTIES: Chris David George Dean (Applicant) v Adrian Mayers (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: APL222-13 MATTER TYPE: Appeals HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Hon K Cullinane AM QC, Judicial Member DELIVERED ON: 18 October 2013 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: Leave to appeal refused. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where a dispute arising out of the sale of a motor home was referred to the Tribunal – where the Tribunal found that the applicant was in breach of the statutory warranty provided for in the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 – where the Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s claim – where the applicant seeks to appeal that decision – where the applicant contends he was not given the opportunity to present his case by way of defence – whether leave to appeal should be granted 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. -- 1 of 2 -- 2 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This is an application for leave to appeal in a minor civil dispute. [2] The decision was delivered on 1 May 2013. [3] Leave to appeal is required pursuant to s 142(3)(a)(i) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (as amended). For such leave to be granted some good reason must be shown. This may be because the matter raises some important question or principle or because leave is required to correct an injustice or because of some other reason. [4] In this case the facts fell within a narrow compass and the dispute between the parties is quite limited. [5] The dispute arose out of the sale by the applicant to the respondent of a motor home in December 2011. The Respondent gave evidence of taking possession of the vehicle from the Applicant at the latter’s premises at Southport intending to drive it to his home at the Sunshine Coast. The vehicle broke down on the way. The Tribunal found that the applicant when contacted by the respondent ‘was not inclined to have the vehicle fixed as he claimed that the applicant drove the vehicle without due care and the problems caused were as a result of the way in which the applicant drove the vehicle’. [6] The reference to the applicant is a reference to the respondent in these proceedings. [7] The Tribunal found that the Applicant was in breach of the statutory warranty provided for in the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000. [8] The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s claim that the Respondent was in breach of the statutory warranty and found that the vehicle should have been repaired by the Applicant. [9] These findings which were clearly open to the Tribunal were fatal to the Applicant’s defence to the Respondent’s claim. [10] The applicant in his application for leave raises only one ground of appeal in the event that leave is granted. [11] This is that he was not given the opportunity to present his case by way of defence. A reading of the transcript provides no support for this claim. Indeed the applicant advanced matters by way of defence as will be apparent from the findings of the Tribunal. [12] The matter turns on its own facts. [13] No question arises which would justify the grant of leave. [14] The application is refused. -- 2 of 2 --