Allstate Sales and Marketing Pty Ltd v Strategies 4 u Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 315

CITATION: Allstate Sales and Marketing Pty Ltd v Strategies 4 u Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 315 PARTIES: Allstate Sales and Marketing Pty Ltd (Applicant/Appellant) v Strategies 4 u Pty Ltd (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: APL188-11 MATTER TYPE: Appeals HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Richard Oliver, Senior Member DELIVERED ON: 11 November 2011 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: Leave to appeal is refused. CATCHWORDS: Minor Civil Dispute – where dispute about whether respondent did accounting work for the applicant – findings of fact – no error of law Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 142(3) 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). REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Strategies commenced a proceeding in the minor civil dispute jurisdiction against Allstate to recover $1,760.00 for accountancy work undertaken by Terana Dillon trading as Kilby O’Lone Accountants, that firm subsequently merged with ATBS (Accounting Tax and Business Solutions), the respondent. There can be doubt that the work was undertaken by ATBS because Mr Kelaart, a director of Allstate, signed a letter of confirmation on 31 July 2009 confirming that certain expenses were incurred by the company and that the vehicles were used “80% for business”. -- 1 of 3 -- 2 [2] A letter was sent to Allstate on 21 April 2010 demanding payment of the outstanding invoice of $1,760.00. Payment was not made and therefore Strategies commenced the proceeding in the Tribunal to recover the monies. [3] Both Mr Kelaart and Mr Seymour of ATBS attended the Tribunal and both gave evidence before the learned Adjudicator. There was no dispute that taxation documents were prepared for the relevant years for which the charges relate. Mr Kelaart raised two issues in defence, firstly, that he did not give instructions to ATBS to do the work and therefore had no contract with it and secondly, he wanted certain documentary information from ATBS which was not forthcoming. [4] On 3 May 2011 the learned Adjudicator considered both those issues and determined that Allstate should pay the outstanding amount claimed. [5] From that decision, Allstate filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal. Leave is necessary as this is an appeal from a decision in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction.1 The grounds of do not raise any issue of error or substantial injustice upon which leave to appeal should be granted. It contends that the claim made against Allstate was not a valid claim because the monies were not owed by it to them, secondly there had never been any business dealings with Allstate and thirdly they had not performed any work for Allstate. There is a further allegation of bias on the part of the learned Adjudicator in conducting the hearing which I will deal with separately. [6] In respect of the first three grounds of appeal, what the applicant is seeking is in effect, a rehearing of the original proceeding. There is no attempt to identify where the learned Adjudicator might have fallen into error or if there has been a substantial injustice warranting interference by the Appeal Tribunal. [7] I have carefully read the transcript of the proceeding before the learned Adjudicator and looked at the documents that were put before him. Those documents conclusively prove, in my view, that work was done for Allstate and that Allstate has had the benefit of that work. [8] In view of the complaints made about the non provision of information to Allstate’s current accountant, the hearing of the matter was adjourned so that the information could be provided. It was an indulgence granted by the learned Adjudicator for the benefit of Allstate so that it would have an opportunity to consider that further information with a view of resolving this dispute. [9] Despite that indulgence, Mr Kelaart, on behalf of Allstate maintained his position despite acknowledging that all necessary documents have been 1 QCAT Act section 142(3). -- 2 of 3 -- 3 handed over to his new accountant by ATBS. Mr Kelaart reiterated his earlier position by saying that:- “For a start, nobody can explain to me why this gentleman has taken this action against me. I’ve had nothing to do with him. I’m not a client of his. I’ve got a dispute with the lady who has got an accounts office down the road here. Why has she never appeared here.” [10] By the date of the second hearing, Mr Kelaart was aware of the historical background to ATBS taking over the management of his affairs. It was therefore, somewhat naïve of him to raise that issue again at that very late stage in view of the fact that he was prepared to sign documents sent to him by ATBS in order to finalise his tax affairs for the relevant years. [11] Rather than be biased towards Allstate, the learned Adjudicator gave it every opportunity to present its case and even ensured that further documents were made available to it. There is no substance to the allegation of bias. [12] The learned Adjudicator, having heard the evidence and considered the documentation, was entitled to come to the view that he did that Allstate should pay the outstanding balance to ATBS. No error of law has been identified by Allstate, nor has any error been identified in the submissions filed. Leave to appeal will ordinarily only be granted where there is some question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage; or, there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision and a reasonable prospect that the applicant would obtain further substantive relief. Another question sometimes asked is: is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant, caused by some error? [13] ATBS by itself or its predecessor have undertaken the work for Allstate. Allstate has the benefit of that accounting work. It now has all documents necessary to clarify any queries that Mr Kelaart may have about the work. No error of law on the part of the learned Adjudicator has been identified, nor is any apparent. There has been no substantial injustice requiring intervention by this Appeal Tribunal, therefore leave to appeal should be refused. -- 3 of 3 --