Beenleigh Little Athletics v Spot On Electrical
[2024] QCATA 134
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Beenleigh Little Athletics v Spot On Electrical[2024] QCATA 134
- Add to List
Beenleigh Little Athletics v Spot On Electrical[2024] QCATA 134
Beenleigh Little Athletics v Spot On Electrical[2024] QCATA 134
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Beenleigh Little Athletics v Spot On Electrical [2024] QCATA 134 |
PARTIES: | beenleigh little athletics (applicant) v spot on electrical (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | APL114-24 |
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S: | Q2898-23 |
MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
DELIVERED ON: | 13 December 2024 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Goodman |
ORDERS: | 1. Leave to appeal is refused. |
CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where the evidence was capable of supporting the conclusions reached by the adjudicator – where leave to appeal refused Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 143(3) QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 Cougar Air Pty Ltd v Sankarayya [2015] QCATA 98 Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Hempel v Richardson & Wrench Hervey Bay [2018] QCATA 170 Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS & Another (2010) 240 CLR 611 |
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) | |
REASONS FOR DECISION
BACKGROUND
- [1]After the applicant (“BLA”) engaged the respondent (“Spot On”) to perform electrical services, the parties fell into dispute and BLA refused to pay the full amount of Spot On’s invoice.
- [2]A minor debt application was lodged in this tribunal, and on 28 March 2024, an adjudicator determined that BLA was liable to pay Spot On $3,224.51.
- [3]BLA has applied for leave to appeal,[1] and, if successful, to appeal against the tribunal’s decision. This is the decision in relation to the leave to appeal application.
- [4]In considering whether to grant leave to appeal, the Appeal Tribunal considers whether:
- there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision;[2]
- there is a reasonable prospect that the appellant will obtain substantive relief;[3]
- leave is needed to correct a substantial injustice caused by the error;[4] or
- 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]An error of law may occur where a decision maker:
- has made a finding of fact without probative evidence to support it, or has drawn an inference which was not reasonably open on the primary facts;[6] or
- has made a decision which is manifestly unreasonable by failing to give adequate weight to a relevant factor of great importance or given excessive weight to a relevant factor of no great importance.[7]
- [6]The appeal process is not an opportunity for applicants to have their case automatically reheard or a decision reconsidered.[8] Leave to appeal will not be granted merely because an appeal tribunal disagrees with a factual finding of the tribunal.[9] The appeal tribunal will not usually disturb findings of fact if the evidence is capable of supporting the conclusions.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE ADJUDICATOR
- [7]The adjudicator had the benefit of oral evidence and submissions from the parties, and documents filed by them.
- [8]The evidence showed that BLA initially obtained a quote from Spot On Electrical to replace faulty light fittings early in 2022. On 1 July 2022, the business changed hands to the current owner. An updated quote was sought, provided and accepted.
- [9]The quote was issued on 27 September 2022 for $8,431.81
“to replace five existing faulty 1000watt metal halide light fittings with two new 900watt LED Flood lights. Note the hire of a 30ft boom lift will be needed to access the light fittings (included in this quote)
Inclusions:
- All labour
- All materials and consumables
- Test of new installation
- All work to be completed to Australian standards
- Clean up and removal of all work related rubbish.
Exclusions:
- No allowance for any further work other than what is stated above.”
- [10]While the quote was to install two 900-watt bulbs, it was discovered that 900-watt bulbs were not available, and ultimately two 600-watt bulbs were installed on each pole at no extra cost. Spot On claims this provides an improved outcome for BLA in terms of brightness and efficiency. BLA denies that, claiming that the change was never communicated to them, and that the new lights provide an inferior outcome.
- [11]After some delay due to making arrangements for Council approval and funding, the lights were installed on 17 March 2023.
- [12]Upon completion of the work, it was discovered that there was no electricity to power the lights due to an unrelated issue. There is some dispute between the parties as to what happened next. It seems that Spot On offered to return to the site and investigate the issue but noted that this would be a new job and was not covered in the initial quote. That offer was not taken up.
- [13]On 20 March 2023, Spot On offered, via email, two hours of free investigation to find the fault. Follow up emails were sent on 21 March, 23 March and 24 March. On 24 March, Spot On issued invoice 497 for $3,000.
- [14]On 25 March, BLA emailed Spot On to say that they did not require them to investigate and repair the fault.
- [15]Spot On submitted at the hearing in the tribunal:
- they quoted to replace lights on two poles as requested by BLA
- the quote was accepted
- they completed the work and
- they should be paid.
- [16]BLA claimed:
- The club was experiencing difficulties with the lights not working
- They engaged Spot On to fix the lights so they were working
- Spot On completed some work but the lights were still not working
- They relied on Spot On to ascertain why the lights were not working and to provide a service to ensure they were working, not simply to replace the bulbs if replacement was not necessary
- They ultimately engaged a third party electrician to investigate and fix the issue at an extra cost to them
- They have paid all but $3,000 of the original quote. They should not have to pay Spot On the full amount of the quote when the lights were not working after they completed their work, and the lights that were installed were inadequate to illuminate the field as required.
THE ADJUDICATOR’S DECISION
- [17]In the decision, the adjudicator noted:
- Spot On was claiming the invoiced amount ($3,000), interest ($43.81), filing fee ($153.70), and the ASIC search ($27), a total of $3,224.51.
- Spot On provided a quote to replace five existing faulty light fittings, and specifically states at the bottom of that quote: No allowance for further work.
- There was a significant period of time before the work could be done, because the Logan City Council had to approve the work. In the meantime, there had been a change, which was communicated, and BLA has provided that evidence, that they couldn’t get the 1000-watt metal-halide light fitting so they would be replaced with 600 watt LED floodlights.
- On the day of the fitting, when it was tested, there was no power at the poles. The workman for Spot On advised a representative of BLA that further work was required. The actual terms of what was said at that time is not agreed between the parties but on 20th of March 2023, there was a discussion regarding the main-power issue.
- An email was sent to BLA, which BLA said they didn’t receive, offering to do some additional work, which wasn’t allowed for in the quote. That email has been confirmed, and it was sent – in the evidence, was sent several more times, but nothing was heard by the applicant. On the 24th of the 3rd, the invoice was sent to Spot On, outlining the works done.
- BLA was quite frustrated that the major issue wasn’t dealt with, which was to the main-power box, but the reality is that work was not quoted for at all … the quote was for the replacement of the light fittings on the two poles, and there was no allowance for further work.
- The extra work completed by the second electrical contractor was never part of the quote provided by Spot On.
- The adjudicator concluded “While it is frustrating for the applicant, they are not exempt from liability to pay the invoice 497, and I accept the evidence today and find the evidence of Spot On more credible. So it’s the order of the tribunal that Spot On pay BLA $3224.51.”
THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
- [18]In its application for leave to appeal, BLA states:
- The decision was contrary to the facts – they engaged Spot On to install the lights to working order and to do the entire job. Instead, they “abandoned the job” and it was necessary to engage another electrician to “plug the lights into the power source”. They also put in deficient bulbs.
- There was a lack of procedural fairness at the hearing – the hearing lasted only approximately 20 minutes and the BLA representative was called on to speak only once. The adjudicator did not hear their side of the story or let them explain their position.
WAS THERE A LACK OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS?
- [19]The transcript reveals that:
- the hearing ran for approximately 20 minutes.
- the adjudicator had spent some time prior to the hearing familiarising themselves with the written material.
- during the hearing, after asking the applicant to explain their application, the adjudicator said to BLA’s representative “You’ve seen the evidence, and you filed a response on the 8th of the 9th 2023, together with submissions. Do you want to take me through your evidence as to why you think you shouldn’t pay that invoice.” BLA’s representative responds, finishing with “…that’s all I’ve got to say”.
- The adjudicator clarifies BLA’s position in relation to whether they had received particular emails, and whether the second electrician had any affiliation with BLA.
- The adjudicator then asks BLA’s representative “Do you have anything else?”, to which they respond “No”.
- [20]Hearings in the Minor Civil Disputes jurisdiction are conducted with as little formality as possible. Multiple matters are listed on a day. Nonetheless, parties must be provided with an opportunity to present their case and to respond to evidence and submissions of the other party. In this case, I am satisfied that the adjudicator was familiar with the documents filed by BLA and allowed them a fair opportunity to present their case and to respond to evidence and submissions presented by Spot On.
- [21]I am not satisfied that the decision is tainted by a lack of procedural fairness.
WAS THE DECISION CONTRARY TO THE FACTS?
- [22]BLA claim, in essence, that they engaged Spot On to fix the lights that were not working. The adjudicator found that the quote that was accepted was for replacing light fittings. The adjudicator accepted evidence that Spot On had tried, on a number of occasions, to enter into dialogue with BLA regarding any extra work that was required to have the lights operational.
- [23]I find that there is no error by the adjudicator in relying on the express terms of the quote to establish the work quoted for and expected pursuant to the agreement between the parties.
SHOULD LEAVE TO APPEAL BE GRANTED?
- [24]The adjudicator provided the parties with ample opportunity to present their cases during the hearing, and considered the evidence and submissions before them. The reasons for the decision explain clearly what the decision is, and the basis upon which it was made.
- [25]BLA does not agree with the adjudicator’s decision. That does not mean it is entitled to a fresh hearing, or for issues to be reventilated on appeal. It is clear that the adjudicator had regard to evidence presented by the parties, and made findings on the evidence. There was sufficient evidence to justify the decision, even though BLA says it was wrong. There is no error of law identified by BLA. There are findings of fact which were open to the adjudicator to make based on their assessment of the evidence.
- [26]The assessment of evidence is a matter for the adjudicator in the hearing. As the evidence was capable of supporting the conclusions reached, there is no basis for interfering with the factual conclusions reached by the adjudicator.
- [27]I am not satisfied that there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision, or that there is a reasonable prospect that BLA would obtain substantive relief if leave was given for the appeal to be considered. I am not satisfied that leave is needed to correct a substantial injustice caused by an error, and I am not satisfied that there is a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage.
- [28]Leave to appeal is refused.
Footnotes
[1] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 143.
[2] QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[3] Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232, 2.
[4] QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[5] Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388, 389; McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577, 577, 580.
[6] Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321, 356.
[7] Ibid, 340.
[8] Hempel v Richardson & Wrench Hervey Bay [2018] QCATA 170 [14].
[9] Ibid; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS & Another (2010) 240 CLR 611, [131].