Armanasco v Consign-A-Car[2019] QCATA 141

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this appeal about?

1. [1]
   Jacqueline Armanasco agreed to sell her vehicle on consignment through Consign-A-Car. Two Justices of the Peace dismissed her application for money she believes she was owed from the sale.^[1]  
2. [2]
   Ms Armanasco wants to appeal that decision.
3. [3]
   Because this is an appeal from a minor civil dispute, leave is required.^[2]
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;^[3]
   2. (b)
      whether there is a reasonable prospect that the appellant will obtain substantive relief;^[4]
   3. (c)
      whether leave is needed to correct a substantial injustice caused by some error;^[5] 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.^[6]

Should the Appeal Tribunal grant leave to appeal?

5. [5]
   Ms Armanasco’s application for leave to appeal or appeal^[7] and submissions^[8] did not provide any grounds of appeal, but instead sought to reargue the case she put to the learned Justices at the original hearing.
6. [6]
   Unfortunately for Ms Armanasco, an application for leave to appeal is not, and should not be an attempt to reargue a party’s case at the initial hearing.^[9] The learned Justices made findings of fact about the terms of consignment and the circumstances surrounding the consignment.^[10]
7. [7]
   The Appeal Tribunal will not usually disturb findings of fact on appeal if the evidence is capable of supporting the conclusions.^[11] An Appellate Tribunal may only interfere if the conclusion is ‘contrary to compelling inferences’ in the case.^[12] A decision cannot properly be called erroneous, simply because the learned Justices preferred one conclusion to another possible conclusion.^[13]
8. [8]
   The findings of the learned Justices are not inconsistent with the documentary evidence, including the Consignment Appointment,^[14] Consignment Agreement^[15] and financial records relating to the transaction.^[16]
9. [9]
   Ms Armanasco raised various allegations of fraud and falsely preparing or signing documents. Allegations of fraud are serious and the threshold of proof is commensurately high.^[17] The learned Justices did not accept these allegations. Having heard the evidence of both Ms Armanasco and representatives from Consign-A-Car, the learned Justices were in the best position to assess credibility. It is not an error to prefer one version of facts to another.^[18]
10. [10]
    The Tribunal must also observe procedural fairness.^[19] However, this is a flexible notion that must be commensurate with the nature and demands of the jurisdiction – it is a matter of construction of a particular statutory power.^[20] The requirements of procedural fairness must be adjusted to the statutory framework governing the Tribunal.^[21]
11. [11]
    The Tribunal’s statutory mandate to conduct proceedings in an informal way that minimises costs to parties and is as quick as is consistent with achieving justice,^[22] is at its most acute in the busy and demanding minor civil disputes jurisdiction, where thousands of applications are processed and determined each year.^[23] Within this context, the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence,^[24] and may inform itself in any way it considers appropriate.^[25]
12. [12]
    Although Ms Armanasco was unrepresented, she received legal advice from no fewer than three solicitors^[26] and had the benefit of a support person with her during the hearing who (at times) spoke on her behalf.^[27] The learned Justices also asked questions of all parties throughout the hearing, carefully examining, re-examining and summarising their evidence.    
13. [13]
    Nothing in the material or the transcript persuades the Appeal Tribunal that the learned Justices’ findings were not open to them. The learned Justices made their findings upon considering both documentary evidence and sworn oral evidence provided by both parties and after a hearing of almost two hours - a considerable period in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction, where multiple applications are heard each day.
14. [14]
    The learned Justices’ findings about the consignment and the conduct of the parties were open on the evidence. Having read the transcript and considered the evidence, the Appeal Tribunal finds nothing to indicate that the learned Justices 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 their conclusions.
15. [15]
    Leave will not be granted where a party simply desires to re-argue the case on existing or additional evidence.^[28] 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.^[29]
16. [16]
    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.