Appleton v Freecall Plumbing [2010] QCATA 23

CITATION: Appleton v Freecall Plumbing [2010] QCATA 23 PARTIES: Desley APPLETON (Applicants) v Freecall Plumbing (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: APL016-10 MATTER TYPE: Appeals HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Judge Kingham (Deputy President) DELIVERED ON: 11 June 2010 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: The application for leave to appeal is refused. CATCHWORDS : APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – ALLEGATION THAT INCORRECT PARTY NAMED ON CLAIM – where adjudicator ordered appellant to pay claim – whether claim was wrongly brought against the appellant REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This is an application for leave to appeal the decision of an adjudicator made on 21 January 2010. The sole ground of appeal is that the claim was wrongly brought against the appellant and the order was wrongly made against her. The claim was for payment for plumbing services in installing a solar hot water system at a property owned by the appellant. The materials used in the installation were purchased by a company, Green Energy Superstore, of which the appellant’s husband is a Director. That company purchased the solar hot water unit. It also purchased other materials required for the installation using the respondents’ trade discount. -- 1 of 2 -- 2 [2] The learned adjudicator correctly identified two issues in the course of the hearing. The first was who should pay for the cost of installing the unit. The second was what amount should be awarded. Neither party has raised any issue about the amount awarded and that is not addressed further in these reasons. [3] The only complaint is about his decision to order the appellant to make that payment. [4] It is clear from the transcript that the adjudicator was alive to this issue from the outset. He took some trouble to make it clear to both parties that he saw this as critical. Most of the evidence given by the party was directed to that issue. [5] There was ample evidence upon which the adjudicator was entitled to reach the conclusion that he did: a) The application for a government rebate for installing the system was made in the name of and signed by the appellant. b) On that form, the appellant declared that she was the purchaser of the system. c) The respondent gave evidence that he spoke to her husband, the Director of Green Energy Super Store, who told him that it was the appellant who was to pay him. d) The respondent gave evidence that this arrangement was consistent with the way in which he had been paid for work done for other clients of Green Energy for whom he had installed systems. [6] The appellant’s husband did not give evidence but the appellant did. In his reasons, he learned adjudicator observed in his reasons, with some cause, that the appellant did not directly answer his questions about whom she expected would be invoiced for the work. [7] There was ample foundation for the learned adjudicator to reach the conclusion he did. The appellant’s prospects on appeal are negligible. No other argument was put forward in support of the application for leave to appeal. The application is refused. -- 2 of 2 --