Ayoubi v Butcher[2018] QCATA 91

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this appeal about?

1. [1]
   On 14 August 2017, the Tribunal refused an application by Abdul Ayoubi on 31 July 2017 to set aside a default decision entered against him on 11 April 2017 in favour of Rebecca Butcher for $10,102.50. 
2. [2]
   Ms Butcher had claimed an amount of $9,990.00 (plus filing fees) ‘for purchase price of $8,999.00 of vehicle, including registration costs, filling (sic) fees, fuel and breakdown costs incurred whilst owing (sic) said vehicle.’^[1]
3. [3]
   Mr Ayoubi wants to appeal the decision refusing to set aside the default decision.
4. [4]
   Because this is an appeal from a minor civil dispute, leave is required.^[2]
5. [5]
   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;^[3]

1. b)
   whether there is a reasonable prospect that the appellant will obtain substantive relief;^[4]

1. c)
   whether leave is needed to correct a substantial injustice caused by some error;^[5] and

1. 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.^[6]

Did the Tribunal fail to take into account a relevant consideration in not setting aside default judgement?

6. [6]
   The Tribunal may set aside a default decision upon application by a Respondent.^[7] In deciding an application to set aside a default decision, a relevant consideration is whether the default decision has been regularly entered.
7. [7]
   The Appeal Tribunal is not satisfied that the default decision was regularly entered in circumstances where:

   1. a)
      the originating application was incorrectly filed as a minor debt; and

   1. b)
      a party to a proceeding cannot respond to a minor civil dispute other than a minor debt claim.^[8]
8. [8]
   Ms Butcher’s claim is for losses she claims to have suffered due to her purchasing a motor vehicle from Mr Ayoubi. Her claim includes the purchase price of the vehicle plus consequential losses including registration fees, roadworthy certificate fees, defect report fees, service fees and taxi fares.
9. [9]
   Ms Butcher’s claim is not a minor debt claim. It is a claim for unliquidated damages. Unliquidated damages is where a claim is for a sum that cannot be determined without consideration by the Tribunal of the applicant’s evidence to support the claim.^[9] Whether Ms Butcher is entitled to a refund of the purchase price in itself requires an assessment of loss and the extent of the alleged defects. She has since re-sold the vehicle in the last month for $2,000.00, which would need to be offset against her claim.
10. [10]
    Ms Butcher’s claim for damages arises from an alleged breach of the contract of sale or the Australian Consumer Law. This requires an assessment of compensation for loss occasioned by breach and is not readily quantifiable from the contract itself (which does not appear to have been filed).^[10]
11. [11]
    This means that Ms Butcher filed the incorrect application to commence her claim. Unfortunately, this appears to have led the Tribunal into error by allowing Ms Butcher’s request for a decision by default when it was unable to do so. This is because a decision by default for unliquidated damages is limited to claims that require the filing of a response.^[11] A party to a proceeding cannot respond to a minor civil dispute other than a minor debt claim.^[12] 
12. [12]
    This means that in exercising the discretion whether to set aside the default judgement, the Tribunal failed to take into account a relevant consideration. This failure to take into account a relevant consideration is an error of law.^[13] For this reason, leave to appeal must be granted to correct a substantial injustice caused by the error. The appeal must be allowed and the Order refusing the application filed on 31 July 2017 to set aside the default decision entered on 11 April 2017 must be set aside.
13. [13]
    Mr Ayoubi cannot not have a default decision entered against him in circumstances where he cannot at law respond to the originating application. Mr Ayoubi is entitled to have the default decision set aside as of right for being irregularly entered.^[14]

What are the appropriate Orders?

14. [14]
    The appropriate Orders are:

    1. a)
       Leave to appeal granted;

    1. b)
       Appeal allowed;

    1. c)
       The Order refusing the Application filed on 31 July 2017 to set aside the default decision entered on 11 April 2017 is set aside;

    1. d)
       The Application filed on 31 July 2017 to set aside the default decision entered on 11 April 2017 is allowed; and

    1. e)
       The default decision entered on 11 April 2017 is set aside.