Scott v Dickson[2018] QCATA 111

QUEENSLAND CIVIL ANDADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this appeal about?

1. [1]
   James Dickson performed repair work at a rental property owned by Ben Scott at the request of Platinum Properties. Mr Scott did not pay because he claimed that Platinum engaged Mr Dickson without his authority. The Tribunal did not accept Mr Scott’s defence and ordered that he pay Mr Dickson $5,413.76.
2. [2]
   Mr Scott seeks leave to appeal the decision and the Tribunal’s decision refusing his application to produce documents.
3. [3]
   Because this is an appeal from a minor civil dispute, leave is required.^[1]
4. [4]
   In determining whether to grant leave, the Tribunal will consider established principles including:

   1. (a)
      whether there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision;^[2]
   2. (b)
      whether there is a reasonable prospect that the appellant will obtain substantive relief;^[3]
   3. (c)
      whether leave is needed to correct a substantial injustice caused by some error;^[4] and
   4. (d)
      whether there is a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage.^[5]
5. [5]
   Mr Scott does not identify any error of fact or law made by the learned Adjudicator. The basis of his appeal appears to be that he disagrees with the lack of reasons provided and the lack of evidence considered.
6. [6]
   I will address the grounds of appeal below.

Did the Tribunal provide adequate reasons?

7. [7]
   Mr Scott submitted that the Tribunal did not provide reasons for its decision to refuse his application for production of documents.
8. [8]
   The submission is not correct. The Tribunal expressly referred to the document’s lack of relevance.^[6] The Tribunal also referred to an application of this kind that had already been refused on 15 September 2016.^[7]
9. [9]
   Mr Scott also submitted that the Tribunal did not make a finding on how the agency relationship had been created and its scope. However, the Tribunal expressly referred to Mr Scott acknowledging that Platinum was his agent for the relevant period.^[8] The Tribunal expressly found that Platinum was engaged as his real estate agent for his rental property.^[9]
10. [10]
    While the Tribunal did not specify the scope of the agency, a failure to give full reasons does not necessarily amount to an error of law – the nature and extent of the obligation varies according to the nature of the case.^[10] It was not necessary for the Tribunal to detail each factor that it found to be relevant or irrelevant in making its ultimate findings,^[11] particularly in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction where the Tribunal’s mandate to deal with matters fairly, quickly and economically^[12] is most acute.
11. [11]
    It is implicit from the Tribunal’s findings that it accepted that arranging repairs and maintenance property was within the scope of being appointed as a real estate agent for a rental property. It is sufficient that the Tribunal set out the evidence it considered relevant and the basis for its findings.^[13]
12. [12]
    This ground of appeal is dismissed.

Was the evidence capable of supporting the Tribunal’s findings?

13. [13]
    Mr Scott disputed the learned Adjudicator’s findings of fact and the conclusions he drew from those findings. Specifically, he submitted:

    1. (a)
       The Adjudicator erred in finding that Ms Farr was an agent of the Respondent; and
    2. (b)
       There was no evidence from which the Adjudicator could determine the scope of Ms Farr’s authority.
14. [14]
    The Appeal Tribunal will not usually disturb findings of fact on appeal if the evidence is capable of supporting the conclusions.^[14] An appellate tribunal may only interfere if the conclusion is ‘contrary to compelling inferences’ in the case.^[15]
15. [15]
    Attempting to explain away the Adjudicator’s finding with a possible alternative inference does not demonstrate error by the Adjudicator. A decision cannot properly be called erroneous, simply because the learned Adjudicator preferred one conclusion to another possible conclusion.^[16]
16. [16]
    Nothing in the material or the transcript persuades the Appeal Tribunal that the findings were not open to the Tribunal. Mr Scott acknowledged that Platinum was the managing agent for the property at the time in question, specifically from around 17 July 2015 through to the 26 August 2015. The email correspondence between Ms Farr from Platinum and Mr Dickson shows that Mr Dickson relied on Platinum’s apparent authority to fix the property and enter into a contract for the repair work.
17. [17]
    While the law of agency can be complex and has invited extensive academic debate, its basic principles are well established. Authority may be constituted by words or conduct that permits it to be presented that another entity has authority to act on its behalf.^[17] The law of agency binds Mr Scott as the principal for acts authorised by Platinum as his agent where a third party relied in good faith on the instruction and apparent authority of Platinum.
18. [18]
    It is not disputed that at the time Platinum instructed Mr Dickson to carry out the works, it was acting as the agent of Mr Scott. Mr Dickson was entitled to rely on Platinum’s apparent authority as there was no reasonable notice that Platinum was acting beyond its authority as agent.
19. [19]
    The appeal process is not an opportunity for a party to again present their case.^[18] It is the means to correct an error by the Tribunal that decided the proceeding.^[19]           
20. [20]
    This ground of appeal is dismissed. 

Should the Appeal Tribunal grant leave to appeal?

21. [21]
    Leave will not be granted where a party simply desires to re-argue the case on existing or additional evidence.^[20] A clear purpose of the requirement for leave, before a party has the right to appeal, is to prevent any attempt to simply conduct a retrial on the merits of the case.^[21] An application for leave to appeal is not, and should not be an attempt to reargue a party’s case at the initial hearing.^[22]
22. [22]
    Having read the transcript and considered the evidence, I find nothing to indicate that the Tribunal acted on a wrong principle, or made mistakes of fact affecting their decision, or were influenced by irrelevant matters. The evidence was capable of supporting the Tribunal’s conclusions.
23. [23]
    There is no question of general importance for the Appeal Tribunal to determine. There is no reasonably arguable case that the Tribunal was in error. There is no reasonable prospect of substantive relief on appeal. There is no evidence that a substantial injustice will result if leave is not granted. Leave to appeal should be refused.

What is the appropriate Order?

24. [24]
    The appropriate Order is:

    1. Leave to appeal refused.