Reocrete Pty Ltd v PM-3 Pty Ltd
[2025] QCATA 28
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
- Reocrete Pty Ltd v PM-3 Pty Ltd[2025] QCATA 28
- Add to List
Reocrete Pty Ltd v PM-3 Pty Ltd[2025] QCATA 28
Reocrete Pty Ltd v PM-3 Pty Ltd[2025] QCATA 28
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Reocrete Pty Ltd v PM-3 Pty Ltd [2025] QCATA 28 |
PARTIES: | reocrete pty ltd ACN 611467899 (applicant/appellant) v pm-3 pty ltd ABN 71618389816 (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | APL010-24 |
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S: | Q755-23 |
MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
DELIVERED ON: | 25 March 2025 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Goodman |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL AND NEW HEARING – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – leave to appeal – where adjudicator failed to determine application for leave to be represented – where adjudicator failed to provide adequate reasons for decision Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28, s 28(3), s 29, s 95, s 121, s 143 Hempel v Richardson & Wrench Hervey Bay [2018] QCATA 170 QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41 Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 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 Chandra v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCA 335 SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152 |
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]Reocrete claims that PM3 booked them to conduct concrete pours and subsequently failed to pay. On 14 April 2023, it lodged an application in the Tribunal seeking an order that PM3 pay it $5,805.48.
- [2]On 20 June 2023, PM3 lodged a response to the claim, stating that:
- Reocrete had invoiced “IJ Group” which is not an incorporated company;
- While PM3 agreed to accept the debt, it did not agree to the terms and conditions as claimed by Reocrete and was therefore not liable for interest and other additional fees; and
- PM3 had previously paid invoices issued by Reocrete to an incorrect entity, and had thus been deprived of the benefit of claiming GST on those invoices and so was not indebted to Reocrete.
- [3]On 5 December 2023, the applicant lodged an application for leave to be represented, advising that:
- The applicant is a company;
- The applicant’s director is a lay person and concrete specialist and lacks knowledge in terms of running the matter at the tribunal. She would be disadvantaged if not represented;
- This is a matter of genuine factual and legal complexity and it is in the interests of justice for the applicant to be legally represented.
- [4]The matter was heard on 13 December 2023. A solicitor attended to represent the applicant, and the respondent was represented by its managing director. At the outset of proceedings, the adjudicator:
- noted that the application for leave to be represented had not been dealt with, and indicated that it would have been refused if he had considered it prior to the hearing as a threshold would need to be met before leave was granted – the question was whether the matter involved complex questions of law or fact;
- stated that the application did not address whether the matter involved complex questions of law or fact;
- confirmed that the respondent objected to the applicant being legally represented and agreed that it would be unfair to the respondent to allow the applicant to be legally represented;
- refused the solicitor’s offer to have the applicant’s director attend by telephone although indicating that the applicant “should be here”; and
- proceeded to determine the matter with the solicitor present and active during the hearing without dealing with the application for leave to be represented.
- [5]During the hearing, the adjudicator:
- indicated that there was a jurisdictional issue in the case;
- indicted that he understood that this was a matter more properly heard in the tribunal as a building dispute (and not as a minor civil dispute), but that he would not transfer the application to the building list as the requisite dispute resolution processes had not been completed through the Queensland Building and Construction Commission; and
- advised that, in the circumstances, he would dismiss the application.
- [6]The adjudicator indicated that he was “satisfied that this is within the realms of a building dispute”. When the applicant’s solicitor asked the reasons that the adjudicator was so satisfied, he replied “Having looked through the file, it’s evident. I’m not going to go into too much detail but I’m satisfied that this needs to go to QBCC first.”
- [7]The hearing was approximately 5 minutes in length. It was clear that the respondent was confused when the adjudicator raised the prospect of a jurisdictional issue.
- [8]An appeal against a decision by the tribunal in a proceeding for a minor civil dispute may be made only if the party has obtained the appeal tribunal’s leave to appeal.[1] Reocrete has applied for leave to appeal[2] the decision, and, if leave is granted, to appeal against the adjudicator’s decision.
- [9]The appeal process is not an opportunity for applicants to have their case automatically reheard or a decision reconsidered.[3] 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;[4]
- there is a reasonable prospect that the appellant will obtain substantive relief;[5] and whether;
- leave is needed to correct a substantial injustice caused by the error;[6] 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.[7]
- [10]The QCAT Act provides that the tribunal must:
- act fairly and observe the rules of natural justice;[8]
- allow each party a reasonable opportunity to make submissions;[9]
- give reasons for its final decision in a proceeding either orally or in writing;[10] and
- take all reasonable steps to ensure each party understands any decision of the tribunal relating to the proceeding.[11]
- [11]The first issue of concern to the appeal tribunal is whether either of the parties was denied natural justice in the conduct of the hearing.
- [12]While the tribunal is obliged to observe the rules of natural justice, it must also act with as little formality and technicality as the legislation, and proper consideration of the matters before the tribunal, permit.[12] The Tribunal must also ensure that each party to a proceeding understands its practices and procedures.[13] Procedural fairness requires that the tribunal adopt fair procedures which are appropriate and adapted to the circumstances of the case. Each party must be given the opportunity to be heard.
- [13]Hearings in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction are conducted in a difficult environment, under time pressure, and are to be resolved by a procedure which is simple, quick, inexpensive and final.
- [14]The issue of procedural fairness was discussed recently in the appeal tribunal decision of In Work International Pty Ltd v Sunco Motors Pty Ltd [2024] QCATA 113, where the tribunal stated
The Tribunal is to deal with matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick: section 3(b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. That said, “the requirements of a fair hearing are not to be sacrificed to achieve economy, informality and speed”.[14]
The Tribunal had an obligation to afford the parties procedural fairness. This appeal is concerned with the fairness of the procedure adopted, not the fairness of the decision produced by that procedure.[15]
- [15]I am satisfied that the adjudicator erred in not finalising the application lodged by the applicant seeking leave to be represented. While indicating that he agreed with the respondent that it would be unfair for the applicant to be represented, he did not dismiss the application. He allowed the solicitor to remain in the room and take part in the hearing, and refused the offer of having the applicant contacted by telephone. That led to an entirely unsatisfactory outcome – the applicant was not present and the solicitor was present without leave to appear. The applicant was, in effect, denied the ability to take part in the hearing. That was a breach of natural justice.
- [16]Clearly, neither of the parties understood the adjudicator’s concerns regarding jurisdiction. The concerns were not explained in a way the parties understood and they were not provided with a reasonable opportunity to make submissions. Upon determining that the matter was “within the realms of a building dispute”, the adjudicator failed to provide adequate reasons or to take reasonable steps to ensure the parties understood the decision. Advising the parties that the conclusions reached are “evident” having looked at the file does not satisfy the requirement to provide reasons for the decision.
- [17]The adjudicator has not satisfied statutory requirements in conducting the hearing – there was a denial of natural justice and a failure to give adequate reasons. In these circumstances, leave to appeal is granted and the appeal is allowed.
- [18]Given that the issue of jurisdiction has now been raised, it is appropriate that the issue be dealt with prior to listing this matter for rehearing. Orders are made accordingly.
Footnotes
[1] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 142(3)(a)(i) (‘QCAT Act’).
[2] Ibid, s 143.
[3] Hempel v Richardson & Wrench Hervey Bay [2018] QCATA 170 [14].
[4] QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[5] Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232, 2.
[6] QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[7] 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.
[8] QCAT Act, s 28.
[9] Ibid, s 95.
[10] Ibid, s 121(4).
[11] Ibid, s 29.
[12] Ibid, s 28(3).
[13] Ibid, s 29.
[14] Chandra v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCA 335.
[15] SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152.