Alliance Security Australia Pty Ltd v House Secure Pty Ltd

CITATION: Alliance Security Australia Pty Ltd v House Secure Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 89

PARTIES:	Alliance Security Australia Pty Ltd (Appellant/Applicant)
v
House Secure Pty Ltd (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL546-13

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Dr Forbes, Member

DELIVERED ON: 16 April 2014

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    Leave to appeal is granted.

2.    The appeal is allowed.

3.    The order of 26 November 2013 is set aside.

4.    These proceedings are transferred to the Magistrates Court of Queensland at Southport.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEALS – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL CLAIM – MINOR DEBT – whether subject claim liquidated – whether evidence of debt or contract – whether claim within jurisdiction of Tribunal – whether Tribunal should raise jurisdictional issue ex mero motu – whether error of law in proceeding to hear and decide claim – whether appeal should be allowed – whether matter should be transferred to competent court

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 32, s 52, schedule 3
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), schedule

Alexander v Ajax Insurance Co Ltd [1956] VLR 436
Environmental Systems Pty Ltd v Peerless Holdings Pty Ltd (2008) 19 VR 358
McGarry v Coates [2013] QCATA 32
PRD Nationwide Pty Ltd v de Abaitua (No 2) [2010] QCATA 33
Rail Corporation of NSW v Nebax Constructions  [2012] NSWSC 6
Thorpe v Charles Sturt City Corporation (1999) 103 LGERA 395

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Sitting Around (“Sitting”), a commercial furniture business, employed Onwatch Pty Ltd to provide security at Sitting’s Bundall premises. Onwatch subcontracted the task of monitoring those premises to the Appellant, Alliance Security Australia Pty Ltd (“Alliance”).

2. In or about April 2012, Sitting chose the Respondent, House Secure Pty Ltd (“Secure”) to replace Alliance. According to Secure, Alliance refused to disclose a code, or password, needed to effect that change. According to Alliance (Secure dissenting) no proper application for the code was made.

3. Secure overcame the impasse by having new equipment installed, at a cost of $660. In this minor civil dispute, Secure claims that amount as a debt payable by Alliance. On 26 November 2013 the Tribunal (McMahon and Vickers JJP) upheld Secure’s claim, and Alliance now seeks leave to appeal.

4. Setting aside contentions that do not now matter, the issues, as pleaded,[1] can be briefly and simply stated: Secure says that Alliance refused to supply the requisite code, which compelled it to install new equipment costing $660. Alliance says that it is not liable to pay that amount to Secure, and further, that the claim, for what it may be worth, should be in the Magistrates Court, not in the Tribunal – a contention repeated in their application for leave.[2] 

   [1]Application in form of a Minor Civil Dispute –…