Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment
  • Appeal Discontinued (QCA)

Taibi v Sabdia Fine Foods Pty Ltd[2015] QCATA 22

Taibi v Sabdia Fine Foods Pty Ltd[2015] QCATA 22


Taibi v Sabdia Fine Foods Pty Ltd [2015] QCATA 22


Leanne & Redovane Taibi



Sabdia Fine Foods Pty Ltd







On the papers




Senior Member Stilgoe OAM


16 February 2015




  1. Leave to appeal refused.


APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – MINOR DEBT – where invoices issued to a business name – where applicant produced business name search – where order made that parties trading as business name pay debt – where respondent claim business operated by a company – whether grounds for leave to appeal

Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404

Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1


This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).


  1. [1]
    From July 2013 to November 2013, Sabdia Fine Foods Pty Ltd supplied chicken products to a butcher shop in Holland Park called Red 1 Halal Butcher. Red 1 paid some invoices. Its last payment was on 29 November 2013, leaving $1,620.59 outstanding. Sabdia filed a claim for that amount. The material supporting the claim showed that Red 1 as a business name registered to Mr and Mrs Taibi. An Adjudicator ordered Mr and Mrs Taibi pay Sabdia $1,620.59 plus costs and interest.
  2. [2]
    Mr and Mrs Taibi want to appeal that decision. Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.[1] Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.[2]
  3. [3]
    The sole ground of appeal is that a company called Red 1 Halal Butchers Pty Ltd operated the business, not Mr and Mrs Taibi personally. In support of that submission, Mr and Mrs Taibi have filed a copy of an invoice for electricity supply directed to the company, a copy of a phone bill directed to the company and a copy of a cheque showing that the company is the entity on which payments to Sabdia were drawn.
  1. [4]
    The appeals tribunal will only accept fresh evidence if it was not reasonably available at the time the proceeding was heard and determined. Ordinarily, an applicant for leave to adduce such evidence must satisfy three tests. Could Mr and Mrs Taibi have obtained the evidence with reasonable diligence for use at the trial? If allowed, would the evidence probably have an important impact on the result of the case? Is the evidence credible?[3]
  1. [5]
    The transcript shows that Mr and Mrs Taibi received very short notice of the hearing. In other circumstances, that might be a valid reason for failing to provide evidence at the hearing. It is not a valid reason when the only real ground of defence was the correct entity behind Red 1. Mr and Mrs Taibi raised the issue in their response; they should have been ready to argue it at the hearing.
  2. [6]
    The invoices show only that the company is an entity involved in Red 1. They do not show that Sabdia had knowledge of the company’s existence at the relevant time or that the business name register was incorrect. They do not have an important impact on the result of the case.
  3. [7]
    The cheque may show that the company pays the bills but, again, it does not show that Sabdia knew of the company’s existence. Indeed, the electronic transfer receipt shows that the information going to Sabdia upon payment records only “red 1 halal”, without reference to a company. The fresh evidence does not assist Mr and Mrs Taibi.
  1. [8]
    The appeal tribunal will not usually disturb findings of fact on appeal if the evidence is capable of supporting the conclusions.[4]  An appellate tribunal may interfere if the conclusion is ‘contrary to compelling inferences’ in the case.[5] 
  1. [9]
    The learned Adjudicator had copies of invoices addressed to Red 1 Halal Butcher. He had a copy of a business name search showing that name registered to Mr and Mrs Taibi. He had copies of delivery run sheets showing acknowledgement of receipt. Some of Sabdia’s invoices to Red 1 Halal had been paid. The evidence can support the learned Adjudicator’s finding that Mr and Mrs Taibi were responsible for the debt and there is nothing in the transcript to persuade me that the learned Adjudicator should have taken a different view of the facts.
  1. [10]
    There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Adjudicator was in error. Leave to appeal should be refused.


[1]  QCAT Act s 142(3)(a)(i).

[2] Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 at [3].

[3] Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404 at 408.

[4] Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 at 561; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 125 –126.

[5] Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 at 10.


Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Taibi v Sabdia Fine Foods Pty Ltd

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Taibi v Sabdia Fine Foods Pty Ltd

  • MNC:

    [2015] QCATA 22

  • Court:


  • Judge(s):

    Senior Member Stilgoe OAM

  • Date:

    16 Feb 2015

Litigation History

EventCitation or FileDateNotes
Primary JudgmentQCAT (No Citation).01 Jan 2014Minor Civil Dispute Application for $1,620.59. Application granted.
Primary Judgment[2015] QCATA 2216 Feb 2015Leave to appeal refused: Senior Member Stilgoe.
Notice of Appeal FiledFile Number: Appeal 2573/1512 Mar 2015-
Appeal Discontinued (QCA)File Number: Appeal 2573/1506 Aug 2015Appeal dismissed by consent.

Appeal Status

Appeal Discontinued (QCA)

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.