Car Rental Holdings Pty Ltd v Cole [2011] QCATA 144

CITATION: Car Rental Holdings Pty Ltd v Cole [2011] QCATA 144 PARTIES: Car Rental Holdings Pty Ltd trading as East Coast Car Rentals v Mr Edward Cole APPLICATION NUMBER: APL333-10 MATTER TYPE: Appeals HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Richard Oliver, Senior Member Peta Stilgoe, Member DELIVERED ON: 21 June 2011 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: Leave to appeal is refused. CATCHWORDS: MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – leave to appeal – where appellant claimed incorrect parties to the proceeding – where appellant challenged amount of claim – where appellant had unsuccessfully applied to reopen proceedings – whether grounds for leave to appeal exist Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 139(5) 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 on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. -- 1 of 3 -- 2 REASONS FOR DECISION Mr Oliver [1] In this matter the Appeal Tribunal consisted of Ms Stilgoe, QCAT Member and me. I have had the benefit of reading her reasons in draft. I agree with her reasons, and her conclusions, and the order she proposes. Ms Stilgoe [2] On 15 March 2010, a car rented from East Coast collided with the rear of a car driven by Mr Cole. There is no dispute between the parties that the collision occurred, that the driver of the rented car was at fault or that there was damage to the car driven by Mr Cole. Mr Cole obtained three quotes for repair of the damage, the cheapest of which was $4,193.09. He brought proceedings to recover that amount in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the tribunal. No one from East Coast appeared at the hearing of the claim. The learned Adjudicator, after considering the evidence, determined that Mr Cole should recover the full amount of his claim, plus the cost of a loss adjuster‟s report and the filing fee. [3] East Coast has appealed the decision on two grounds: a) That neither Mr Cole nor East Coast is the correct party to the dispute. b) The amount of the claim is in dispute. [4] 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? [5] The question of the correct respondent occupied much of the learned Adjudicator‟s time during the hearing: a) She identified1 that a tribunal notice was sent to East Coast and not returned. b) She had copies of email transmissions between East Coast and Mr Cole dated 8 April 2010 in which, significantly, East Coast did not deny responsibility for the repair of the vehicle. c) She was told, and accepted, that the driver of the vehicle produced a rental agreement that identified East Coast. 1 Transcript, page 5, line 46. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 d) A representative from East Coast had attended mediation. [6] Similarly, the learned Adjudicator had information available to her that clearly showed Mr Cole did not own the car but was acting as some sort of agent for the owner. That evidence included a letter of demand signed jointly by the owner and Mr Cole which foreshadowed the possibility that Mr Cole would take action. [7] Mr Cole produced three quotes to rectify the damage. He claimed the amount of the lowest quote. He produced a loss adjuster‟s report. There was no evidence before the learned Adjudicator to suggest that the amount claimed was not reasonable. [8] Findings of fact by a Tribunal will not usually be disturbed on appeal if the facts inferred by the Tribunal, upon which the finding is based, are capable of supporting its conclusions, and there is evidence capable of supporting any inferences underlining it.2 [9] An appellate tribunal may interfere, however, if the conclusion at first instance is „contrary to compelling inferences‟ in the case.3 As the High Court said in Fox v Percy: In such circumstances, the appellate court is not relieved of its statutory function by the fact the trial judge has, expressly or implicitly, reached a conclusion influenced by an opinion concerning the credibility of witnesses. In such a case, making all due allowances for the advantages available to the trial judge, the appellate court must “not shrink from giving effect to” its own conclusion.4 [10] The learned Adjudicator‟s findings of fact can be supported by the evidence before her at the hearing and I can find no compelling reason to come to a different view. There is no important question which requires a decision from the appeals tribunal, there is no reasonably arguable case of error by the learned Adjudicator; there is no reasonable prospect of substantive relief being granted on appeal and there is no suggestion that there is a substantial injustice to East Coast caused by some error. [11] East Coast‟s submissions in support of this application highlight its futility: “[East Coast] have never denied the fact that there as damage caused…However we don‟t agree with the extent of damage…”. [12] This application for leave is, in truth, an application to reopen the hearing and present fresh evidence. An application to reopen has already been refused and there is no appeal from that decision.5 The horse has bolted; the stable door has closed. Leave to appeal should be refused. 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. 4 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 128 per Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Kirby JJ. 5 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 139(5). -- 3 of 3 --