Haskins v Jopburg Pty Ltd [2025] QCATA 54

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

[1] In April 2023, Jayce and Matthew Haskins took their car to Jopburg Pty Ltd[1] for repairs. Jopburg consented to the Haskins paying for the repairs in instalments.
[2] Following a series of unfortunate events, when the car was returned to them in late August 2023, the Haskins discovered several issues which had not existed previously.
[3] Upon discovering the issues with their car, they withheld the last instalment of $5,000.
[4] On 1 December 2023 Jopburg filed an Application for Minor Civil Dispute seeking to recover the outstanding amount.
[5] The Haskins claimed a set-off for the cost of repairing the car's outstanding issues calculated on verbal quotes provided to them at the hearing.

Should the Haskins have leave to file new evidence?

[9] The Appeals Tribunal will only accept fresh evidence if it was not reasonably available at the time the proceeding was heard and determined.[2] Ordinarily, an applicant for leave to adduce such evidence must satisfy each of the following tests:

(a) The evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial;

(b) The evidence, if allowed, would probably have an important impact on the result of the case; and

(c) That the evidence is credible though it need not be incontrovertible.[3]

[10] The Haskins have submitted that as they live in a remote area, a significant amount of time and money is required to acquire quotes. However, I note that the quotes provided are dated 19 March 2024, one day after the matter was heard by the Tribunal.
[11] A period of approximately seven months passed between when the Haskins collected their car from Jopburg and the hearing. Approximately three and a half months passed between Jopburg's filing the Application and the hearing.
[12] I consider that, in that time, the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial.
[13] The evidence, if allowed, will not have an important impact on the results of the case. The Haskins were successful; they are simply wanting to increase the claim due to increase in repair costs.
[14] I accept that the evidence is credible. However, given the considerable delay and the lack of cogent reasons for obtaining this evidence earlier, leave to file new evidence is refused.

[15] Because this is an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.[4] Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.[5]
[16] The Tribunal did not err in making its decision. It accepted the evidence available to it at the time and granted the Haskins a set-off.
[17] It is not an error of law or fact that the amount awarded by the Tribunal does not cover the new quoted cost of repairs.
[18] The appeal is dismissed.

Leave to file new evidence is refused.
Leave to appeal is refused.

[1] The Application was filed under the name 'Jopburg Pty Ltd'. At the hearing, the Respondent informed the Adjudicator that this was incorrect and that the name was 'Jafbury Pty Ltd'. This can be seen at T1-2 of the transcript of proceedings. For simplicity, I have continued to refer to the Respondent as 'Jopburg Pty Ltd'.

[3] Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404, 405.

[5] Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 [3].

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (12 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (1)