Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd v Schott [2017] NSWCATAP 96

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd v Schott [2017] NSWCATAP 96 Hearing dates: 13 March 2017 Date of orders: 03 May 2017 Decision date: 03 May 2017 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: R Seiden SC, Principal Member S Thode, Senior Member Decision: Leave to appeal is refused. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NSW) – no question of law – leave to appeal – decision not against weight of evidence – decision not unfair or inequitable – no new evidence Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Cases Cited: Arogen v Leighton [2013] NSWSC 1099 Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 Uvanna Pty Ltd and Ano v Tsang and Ors (1997) 72 FCR 502 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd (Appellant) Barry Mathew Schott (Respondent) Representation: Ms Sella (Appellant) Mr Schott in person (Respondent) File Number(s): AP 16/55572 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: NCAT Jurisdiction: Consumer & Commercial Division Date of Decision: 10 November 2015 Before: M Tibbey, General Member File Number(s): GEN 16/46937

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1. The underlying dispute concerns a contract whereby the respondent applied to the appellant to obtain qualifications as a plumber. The qualifications were not obtained and the respondent sought a refund. The main issue in the proceedings, at first instance, was whether or not the appellant had represented to the respondent that he would be able to qualify as a plumber within 90 days, by relying on his TAFE qualifications; and if not, he would be entitled to a refund (the Representations). The Tribunal at first instance found the Representations to be made out and further accepted that it was not possible for the respondent to rely on his TAFE qualifications, as they were too old. The Tribunal also accepted that had the respondent known he could not so qualify, he would not have entered into the contract. On 9 December 2016, the Tribunal published its reasons for decision. The appellant was ordered to refund $8,000.00 to the respondent. 2. In finding for the respondent, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent in relation to the Representations. The primary basis for the appeal is that that the Tribunal's preference for the respondent's evidence was unjustified.