CITATION:	Smith v Finn [2013] QCATA 266	

PARTIES:	Mr Glen Smith
(Appellant)	
	v	
	Miss Mary Delores Finn
(Respondent)	

APPLICATION NUMBER:	APL252 -13	

MATTER TYPE:	Appeals	

HEARING DATE:	On the papers	

HEARD AT:	Brisbane	

DECISION OF:	Peta Stilgoe OAM, Senior Member	

DELIVERED ON:	30 September 2013	

DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane	

ORDERS MADE:	1. Leave to appeal refused.	

CATCHWORDS:	MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – whether grounds for leave to appeal
 
Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549; 
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118.
Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1
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
Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The appeal tribunal heard and determined this matter on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION
[1]	Mr Smith and Miss Finn used to be friends. Because they were friends, Miss Finn lent Mr Smith $10,000 and, because they were friends, neither of them bothered to record the loan in writing. Inevitably, the friends fell out over the repayment of the loan. Miss Finn said Mr Smith owed him $6,000; Mr Smith claimed that Miss Finn had wiped the debt in exchange for work he did for her. The tribunal found that Mr Smith owed Miss Finn $5,000 and ordered him to pay her that sum.
[2]	Mr Smith wants to appeal that decision. He disagrees with the learned Member’s findings.
[3]	Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary. The question whether or not leave to appeal should be granted is usually addressed according to established principles. Is there a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision?  Is there a reasonable prospect that the applicant will obtain substantive relief?  Is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice caused by some error?  Is there a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the appeals tribunal, would be to the public advantage?
[4]	The appeals tribunal will not usually disturb findings of fact on appeal if the evidence is capable of supporting the conclusions.  An appellate tribunal may interfere if the conclusion is ‘contrary to compelling inferences’ in the case.  As the High Court said in Fox v Percy:
In such circumstances, the appellate court is not relieved of its statutory function by the fact the trial judge has, expressly or implicitly, reached a conclusion influenced by an opinion concerning the credibility of witnesses. In such a case, making all due allowances for the advantages available to the trial judge, the appellate court must “not shrink from giving effect to” its own conclusion.
[5]	The essential point about this dispute is whether Mr Smith had access to Miss Finn’s apartment while she was overseas. Miss Finn says he did not. Her evidence is confirmed by Mr Frost, who lived in Miss Finn’s unit while she was away. Mr Smith says that he did. His evidence is confirmed by Mr Sandford, who helped him do the work, and other witnesses who add colour, but not detail, to Mr Smith’s evidence. 
[6]	The learned Member had to choose between the two competing versions. She chose Miss Finn’s version. Her decision can be supported by the evidence. Mr Smith’s documents are not always consistent. The dates on which the agreement was varied, and the work undertaken, change and Mr Sandford’s evidence is not entirely helpful on this point.  I understand that Mr Smith has difficulty in accepting the learned Member’s decision but there is nothing in the transcript to persuade me that her findings were not open and that she should have taken a different view of the facts.
[7]	There is no question of general importance that should be determined by the appeals tribunal. There is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Adjudicator 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.