Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
- Unreported Judgment
Gent v Hogan QCATA 36
Gent v Hogan  QCATA 36
Paul Edward Scott Gent
Julie Lee Hogan
On the papers
Senior Member Stilgoe OAM
17 March 2015
APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where claim for repayment of loan – where appellant did not appear at hearing – where tribunal ordered repayment of loan – whether grounds for leave to appeal
Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Pickering v McArthur  QCA 294
Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
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).
REASONS FOR DECISION
- On 24 September 2013, Mr Gent received $9,000 from Ms Hogan. She says it was a loan. Mr Gent says it was payment for building work done on Ms Hogan’s house. Ms Hogan filed a claim for return of the $9,000 plus some other money that she had paid Mr Gent. The tribunal heard the claim on 16 October 2014, in Mr Gent’s absence. The tribunal ordered that Mr Gent pay Ms Hogan $9,000 plus interest and costs.
- Mr Gent applied to reopen the proceeding. He was not successful. He has now filed an application for leave to appeal. The main ground of this application is that he did not have an opportunity to present evidence and he disputes the learned Adjudicator’s findings.
- Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary. 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.
- There is no appeal from a decision about a reopening. Therefore, Mr Gent’s application for leave to appeal must be limited to whether there is an error in the learned Adjudicator’s findings of fact.
- I’ve read the file and the transcript. There is a withdrawal form for $9,000 with a notation on the obverse ‘Please Pay 9000 to Paul Gent as a loan’. There is a text message ‘…if u can lend the 9 i’ll give u 3 back in 2 weeks’. The evidence can support the learned Adjudicator’s findings. There is nothing in the transcript to persuade me that the learned Adjudicator should have taken a different view of the facts. There is nothing to indicate that the learned Adjudicator’s findings were contrary to compelling inferences.
- There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Adjudicator was in error. Leave to appeal should be refused.
- Published Case Name:
Paul Edward Scott Gent v Julie Lee Hogan
- Shortened Case Name:
Gent v Hogan
 QCATA 36
Senior Member Stilgoe
17 Mar 2015