Annmarcris Pty Ltd v Jaydon Pty Ltd - [2015] QCAT 138

CITATION:

Annmarcris Pty Ltd v Jaydon Pty Ltd [2015] QCAT 138

PARTIES:	Annmarcris Pty Ltd atf Annmarcris Trust (Applicant)
v
Jaydon Pty Ltd (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDO2387-14

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

19 March 2015

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Bertelsen

DELIVERED ON:

19 March 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application is transferred to the Magistrates Court at Brisbane for hearing.

2. The applicant’s claim shall be deemed to have commenced on the date of filing of the initiating application in the Tribunal.

CATCHWORDS:

COMMERCIAL TENANCY DISPUTE – make good provisions pursuant to commercial lease – claim for damages – cost of make good claimed as a debt – minor civil dispute debt jurisdiction

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 12, Schedule 3

Hill v Berghofer [2011] QCATA 034

APPEARANCES:

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

The application seeks end of commercial tenancy maintenance and repairs primarily to cranes which the applicant Annmarcris says formed part of fixtures and fittings at the premises 42 Campbell Avenue, Wacol. The claim is made pursuant to make good provisions of the commercial lease entered into between Annmarcris and Jaydon.
Jaydon had occupied the premises for some three years prior to December 2013.
Annmarcris’ claim is essentially encapsulated in its invoice number 0088 dated 26 September 2014 attached to its application. That invoice refers to maintenance and repairs to cranes at 42 Campbell Avenue, Wacol to bring them back to the condition as required under the relevant lease ($11,740.30) and maintenance and service to air conditioners ($570.00) a total of $13,541.33 inclusive of GST.
Annmarcris has issued its make good claim as an application for minor civil dispute – minor debt.
The issue that has now arisen is whether or not this is a claim which can be determined by the Tribunal in its minor civil dispute jurisdiction.
Section 12 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) lists the types of applications that the Tribunal may entertain in its minor civil dispute jurisdiction. The section includes a debt or liquidated demand to $25,000 as well as claims arising out of a contract between a consumer and a trader (which this is not) and a claim arising out of a contract between two or more traders (which this is not). Other types of applications that may be entertained pursuant to s 12 are not relevant here.
Schedule 3 of the QCAT Act describes a minor civil debt, amongst other things, as ‘a claim to recover a debt or liquidated demand of money, with or without interest, of up to the prescribed amount ($25,000)’.
A debt or a liquidated demand has been described as a sum of money that can be calculated by reference to a formula, schedule or some other yardstick by which the debt…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Annmarcris Pty Ltd v Jaydon Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] QCAT 138
Decision Date: 19 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Annmarcris Pty Ltd brought an action against Jaydon Pty Ltd in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, seeking to recover costs under a commercial tenancy agreement. The dispute arose from the make good provisions in the lease, which required Annmarcris to restore the premises to its original condition upon vacating. Jaydon failed to comply with these provisions, leading Annmarcris to seek damages for the cost of making the necessary repairs. The crux of the matter was whether the cost of the make good works could be claimed as a debt, thereby falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal needed to determine if the claim was within the minor civil debt jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the claim was indeed a debt within the meaning of the applicable legislation, as it related to a liquidated sum owed by Jaydon to Annmarcris for the make good works. The Tribunal acknowledged that the costs claimed were ascertainable and arose out of the tenancy agreement, thereby qualifying as a debt. However, the Tribunal also noted that the amount claimed exceeded the jurisdictional limit for minor civil debt disputes, which is $50,000. As a result, the Tribunal did not have the authority to hear the matter and needed to transfer it to the appropriate court. The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be transferred to the Magistrates Court at Brisbane, which has jurisdiction over minor civil debt disputes.

In light of the Tribunal's findings, the application was transferred to the Magistrates Court at Brisbane for hearing. The Tribunal deemed Annmarcris's claim to have commenced on the date of filing of the initiating application in the Tribunal. This decision ensured that the matter would proceed in the correct forum, where the jurisdictional limits would be appropriately considered.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is transferred to the Magistrates Court at Brisbane for hearing.

2. The applicant’s claim shall be deemed to have commenced on the date of filing of the initiating application in the Tribunal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.