Allan's Excavations Pty Ltd v Pacific Coast Engineering [2012] QCATA 119

CITATION: Allan’s Excavations Pty Ltd v Pacific Coast Engineering [2012] QCATA 119 PARTIES: Allan’s Excavations Pty Ltd (Applicant/Appellant) v Pacific Coast Engineering (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: APL427-11 MATTER TYPE: Appeals HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Justice Alan Wilson, President DELIVERED ON: 3 May 2012 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: 1. Application for leave to appeal refused. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – MINOR DEBT – where the Applicant had issued the Respondent with a quote for the performance of certain works – where the Applicant incurred additional costs associated with dumping materials – where he learned Member found that the quote, in the absence of any agreement otherwise, included any dumping fees incurred – whether there is a question of general importance to justify the grant of leave – whether there is sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the decision to justify the grant of leave Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 32, 142 APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act). -- 1 of 3 -- 2 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This is an application for leave to appeal against a determination made by a Judicial Registrar, sitting as a QCAT Member, in a Minor Claims Dispute on 3 October 2011. [2] Leave to appeal is necessary under the provisions of s 142(3) of the QCAT Act. [3] Generally speaking, some particular reason needs to be demonstrated before leave to appeal is granted. [4] This may involve a question of general importance, or it may be necessary to correct an injustice, or there may be some other reason. [5] The matter falls within a very narrow compass. [6] The dispute between the parties arose out of certain works performed by the Applicant on behalf of the Respondent. [7] The Applicant gave a written quote dated 15 March 2011 to the Respondent. [8] This was to “remove spoils from work yard” and was for a total of $2,160.00 excluding GST. The Respondent’s business included sandblasting. [9] Subsequently, by an order form dated 21 March 2011, the Respondent accepted the quote. [10] By a tax invoice of 26 May 2011, the Applicant claimed from the Respondent, a total of $32,870.20. Some $8,816.50 has been paid. [11] This total was claimed in respect of the same work, the subject of the earlier quote. [12] At the outset difficulties were encountered when the material was taken to a nearby dump (Deeragun). The Respondent obtained what are described as regulated waste documents. [13] The Council approved the dumping but required the material to be dumped at a dump a considerable distance away. [14] When the Applicant started taking the material to the stipulated dump he was charged about $600.00 per load as a dumping fee. These charges explain the difference between the parties. [15] The Respondent has made payment to the Applicant for the additional costs associated with the extra travel to the stipulated dump. This was to -- 2 of 3 -- 3 be a payment “in good faith”. I take this to mean that the payment was made gratuitously. [16] The Member found that the quote, in the absence of any agreement otherwise, included any dumping fees charged. [17] No attempt was made by the Applicant to alter the terms of the agreement to charge dumping fees on top of the quote. [18] The effect of the findings is that the Applicant made an improvident contract. Certainly the whole dealings appear somewhat unbusinesslike. [19] The matter turns on its own particular facts. The proposed grounds of appeal challenge some factual findings. [20] There is no question of general importance in the case. Nor is there sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the decision to justify the grant of leave. [21] The application is refused. -- 3 of 3 --