Mahon v Geebung Truck and Car Centre
[2024] QCATA 87
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
- Mahon v Geebung Truck and Car Centre[2024] QCATA 87
- Add to List
Mahon v Geebung Truck and Car Centre[2024] QCATA 87
Mahon v Geebung Truck and Car Centre[2024] QCATA 87
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Mahon v Geebung Truck and Car Centre [2024] QCATA 87 |
PARTIES: | michael mahon (applicant/appellant) v geebung truck and car centre (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | APL126-23 |
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S: | MCD52948-22 Brisbane |
MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
DELIVERED ON: | 22 August 2024 |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Howe |
ORDERS: | Application for leave to appeal refused |
CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – where the respondent commenced minor debt proceedings against the appellant seeking payment of money for work done and goods supplied – where no order made in the minor civil dispute proceedings entitling the respondent to recover the costs of work done – where the appellant appealed the Adjudicator’s order where no order was made entitling the appellant to recover the money he had already paid the respondent – where the appellant as respondent to the minor debt proceedings was not entitled to pursue a counter claim in those proceedings and so be entitled to an award recovering money – where no identifiable ground of appeal identified in the appeal Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), r 48(3) Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 |
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: | 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
- [1]The appellant, Mr Mahon, asked the respondent to quote on repairing the head gasket and timing chains on his Iveco van.
- [2]The respondent gave a quote for that in the sum of $6,634.45.
- [3]The vehicle was towed into the respondent’s workshop some weeks later. The respondent started work dismantling the engine. The cylinder head was sent away for machining but the machinist advised the injectors were seized in the cylinder head.
- [4]Mr Mahon was advised about that. He instructed the respondent to buy and fit a new cylinder head, timing chain, seals and gasket and a new thermostat.
- [5]In the course of doing that work, the respondent found additional parts and further work was necessary: all 4 injectors had to be replaced; an air condenser had to be replaced; the exhaust manifold required attention; the truck required a service.
- [6]The respondent advised Mr Mahon about the extra work but the latter said he could not afford it. The respondent was told to stop work. At that stage Mr Mahon had paid $8,000 to the respondent. It is unclear what work had been done to that point in time, but the respondent instituted minor debt proceedings in the Tribunal claiming payment for parts supplied and work done of $11,138.50 plus costs. Of that, an amount of $3,900 represented storage costs.
- [7]Mr Mahon disputed he owed $11,578.07. He said the quote he had been given was limited to $6,634.45. He had requested a quote for the cost of the additional work suggested by the respondent but it was given late and when he was advised it was $24,403.95, he told the respondent to stop work.
- [8]The matter was heard before an Adjudicator on 19 April 2023. The Adjudicator’s orders at conclusion of hearing were that the respondent must remove the cylinder head from the engine and Mr Mahon was to collect the vehicle, failing which the respondent would be entitled to charge $100 per week storage until the vehicle was collected by Mr Mahon or sold by the respondent. There were no other orders.
- [9]Given this is an appeal from a decision made in the Tribunal’s minor civil dispute jurisdiction, leave to appeal must first be obtained before any appeal proceeds.[1]
- [10]Leave to appeal, where leave is required, will usually only be granted where an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the appellant and where there is a reasonable argument that there is an error to be corrected.[2]
- [11]Mr Mahon has filed an application for leave to appeal the decision below. In the application he was required to briefly state the grounds of appeal. He said this however:
I was originally told by a QCAT representative that I had to give the other party all my evidence but I wasn’t to receive any of their evidence. I recently spoke to another representative who said that I was suppose (sic) to get their evidence. I had no idea what evidence the adjudicator was making decisions from and once I got home and had time to process what had happened I quickly realised the decision handed down was based on lies from the other party which I am easily able to prove as such. The other party continuously lied and misled the adjudicator and I was unable to convince her otherwise. I am hoping to get a fair hearing.
- [12]As to orders sought on the appeal, Mr Mahon wants to recover the $8,000 he paid to the respondent. He said he does not know what else he would be entitled to if the Adjudicator believed that the other party blatantly overcharged.
- [13]Given there was and can be no counter application in minor civil dispute proceedings,[3] Mr Martin is not entitled to claim back the $8000 he had paid or any other amount in the minor debt proceedings below. If he wanted to claim money back, he was obliged to make a separate minor civil dispute claim – and pay the filing fee associated with that.
- [14]In the appeal proceedings the parties were directed from outset that if a party sought leave to rely upon fresh evidence not before the tribunal below, they were acquired to file an application seeking such leave and to provide a copy of the additional evidence to be adduced. Additionally they were directed to make submissions stating why the additional evidence was not available to the Tribunal below, why the additional evidence was important and why the additional evidence should be accepted.
- [15]After making such application the other party would be entitled to file submissions in response before any decision was made about allowing the additional evidence to be considered on the appeal.
- [16]Mr Mahon made no such application. The respondent was therefore accorded no opportunity to file submissions in response when Mr Mahon simply filed a bundle of documents in the appeal proceedings which included fresh evidence not provided to the Adjudicator or the respondent in the proceedings below.
- [17]There are scribbled notations on various of the documents which do not amount to any sort of sensible submission. There are comments made attacking the accuracy of statements made by witnesses for the respondent in the proceedings below, but how the claimed errors relate to any ground of appeal is unknown, given the grounds of appeal are entirely opaque.
- [18]An appeal is not an opportunity for an unsuccessful party to “try again”. It is not an opportunity to shore up holes in the case presented by the party below, recognised in hindsight.
- [19]Given the learned Adjudicator’s final order, the respondent failed on its claim for the payment of money. The respondent has been directed to allow Mr Mahon to collect his vehicle, minus a cylinder head purchased by the respondent and fitted to the original motor but not paid for by Mr Mahon.
- [20]As explained, Mr Mahon filed no counter application filed in the proceeding before the Adjudicator, and in such proceedings no counter application is allowed. Therefore he was never entitled to come away from the hearing below with an award of money in his favour.
- [21]Mr Mahon fails to identify any error to be corrected in the decision below. He fails to show that he has suffered substantial injustice as a result of the hearing below.
- [22]Leave to appeal is refused.