Allen v I.S.S Security

[2013] QCAT 354

CITATION: Allen v I.S.S. Security [2013] QCAT 354

PARTIES:	Mr Leslie Ernest Allen (Applicant)
V
I.S.S. Security (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: MCD096/13

MATTER TYPE: Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE: Decision on the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 14 January 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:     1.    The tribunal directs the Principal Registrar to reject the application

CATCHWORDS:

MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where claim for money lost through security process – where claim rejected by Principal Registrar – whether tribunal should direct Principal Registrar to accept the claim

Queensland Civil and Administration Act 2009 ss 12, 35

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The 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 Allen filed a “consumer dispute” claim in the tribunal. He says that, on 18 June 2012, he put his money belt through security at Brisbane International Airport, but he forgot to collect it at the other end. When he returned to Brisbane the next day Mr Allen collected his money belt from lost property but the money inside it, $1,500, was missing. I.S.S. Security managed the security process at the airport.

1. The Principal Registrar rejected Mr Allen’s application because the tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the claim.

2. Mr Allen applied for a review of the Principal Registrar’s decision. I may direct[1] the Principal Registrar to reject an application only if any one of three grounds applies. One of the grounds is that the application does not comply with the Queensland Civil and Administration Act 2009 or an enabling Act[2].

   [1]        Queensland Civil and Administration Act 2009 s35(8).

   [2]        Ibid s 35(3)(c).

3. The tribunal’s minor civil disputes’ jurisdiction is limited[3]. There are only three possible ways that Mr Allen’s claim can be within the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Although he claims a specific amount of money from the Respondent, Mr Allen’s claim is not to recover a debt or liquidated demand[4]. It is a claim for damages for negligence. Mr Allen’s claim does not arise out of a contract between a consumer and trader[5], nor does it arise from a contract between traders[6].

   [3]        Ibid s 12.

   [4]        Ibid s 12(4)(a).

   [5]        ibid s 12(4)(b).

   [6]        Ibid s 12(4)(c).

4. The Principal Registrar was right to reject Mr Allen’s claim and I direct the Principal Registrar to reject the application.