Egerton v Claudia Tiller Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 289

CITATION: Egerton v Claudia Tiller Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 289 PARTIES: Mr William Egerton v Claudia Tiller Holdings Pty Ltd APPLICATION NUMBER: APL253-11 MATTER TYPE: Appeals HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe, Member DELIVERED ON: 6 October 2011 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: Leave to appeal refused. CATCHWORDS: MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – whether pool company vicariously liable for contract executed in its office – where contract not in the name of the pool company – whether grounds for leave to appeal Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): This matter was heard and determined on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] In September 2010, Mr Egerton visited the office/display site of Luxury Gold Coast Pools. He dealt with Mr Monaghan who persuaded him to execute a contract for the construction of a swimming pool and to pay a deposit of $3,300. Mr Monaghan is a rogue. He has taken off with Mr Egerton’s deposit and no pool has been built. Mr Egerton filed a claim against Claudia Tiller Holdings Pty Ltd, which trades under the name Luxury Gold Coast Pools for the return of his deposit. The learned -- 1 of 2 -- 2 Adjudicator determined that there was no relationship between Mr Egerton and Claudia Tiller Holdings Pty Ltd and dismissed the claim. [2] Mr Egerton has appealed the learned Adjudicator’s decision on the ground that the learned Adjudicator should have found that Claudia Tiller Holdings Pty Ltd was vicariously liable for Mr Monaghan’s actions as he was an employee of the company. [3] Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil dispute jurisdiction, leave is necessary. 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? [4] The trouble with Mr Egerton’s submission, as the learned Adjudicator identified, is that he signed a contract with Mr Monaghan trading as Jade Green Pools. Except for the fact that he was present on the premises of Luxury Gold Coast Pools, there is no evidence that Mr Monaghan gave Mr Egerton any reason to believe that he was an agent for, or employee of, Luxury Gold Coast Pools. Mr Egerton conceded that he did not look at the contract closely; he did not question why the contract did not name Luxury Gold Coast Pools. The evidence suggests that Mr Egerton made the cheque for the deposit to Mr Monaghan personally. In those circumstances, Claudia Tiller Holdings Pty Ltd cannot be held responsible for Mr Monaghan’s actions as they were clearly outside the terms of any employment contract and Mr Egerton knew, or should have known, that Mr Monaghan was not acting in his capacity as employee. [5] There is no question of general importance that should be determined by the appeal tribunal; there is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Adjudicator was in error; there is no reasonable prospect of substantive relief on appeal; and there is no evidence that a substantial injustice will result if leave is not granted. Leave to appeal should be refused. -- 2 of 2 --