Apples Contracting Pty Ltd v Lab45 Pty Ltd - [2016] QCAT 247

CITATION:

Apples Contracting Pty Ltd v Lab45 Pty Ltd [2016] QCAT 247

PARTIES:	Apples Contracting Pty Ltd ACN 128 195 988 (Applicant)
v
Lab45 Pty Limited ACN 136 902 102 (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDO0207-16

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

20 June 2016

HEARD AT:

Southport

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Mewing

DELIVERED ON:

20 June 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

ORDERS MADE:

1. Application for representation filed by the Respondent on 23 May 2016 is refused.

2. The Respondent’s application to set aside the default decision of 20 April 2016 is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – application for representation – application to set aside default decision – whether default decision irregularly entered – whether service on a corporation properly effected

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 ss 11, 28, 43, 50, 51
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules r 38

Addo v Cairns and District Regional Housing Corporation [2012] QCATA 105
Booij & Multiply Plus Pty Ltd v Roper [2015] QCATA 157
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550

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

Background

Apples Contracting filed an Application for Minor Civil Dispute on 15 March 2016, seeking payment of $13,846.86 allegedly owed to it by Lab45, plus interest and costs totalling a further $634.44.
On 20 April 2016 Apples Contracting filed a Request for Decision by Default seeking a Tribunal order under s 50 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act for Lab45 to pay the claimed amount plus interest and costs because it had failed to file a response to the originating application within 28 days. A default decision in favour of Apples Contracting was made the same day.
Lab45 has since filed two applications: (1) an application to set aside the default decision of 20 April 2016; and (2) an application for leave to be represented by its solicitors. These applications are the subject of this hearing.

Application to Set Aside a Default Decision

Section 51 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 allows the Tribunal, on application by a respondent, to set aside a decision by default on terms the Tribunal considers appropriate.
Lab45 says the default decision was entered irregularly because it was not provided with a copy of the originating application. It also says it has a “prima facie defence” to Apples Contracting’s claim. For these reasons it says the default decision should be set aside pursuant to s 51 QCAT Act.
a) Service
Rule 38 of the QCAT Rules provides that a copy of an application for a minor debt claim must be served on an entity as provided by a practice direction. QCAT Practice Direction 8 of 2009 states that personal service on a corporation is effected by leaving it at or posting it to the registered office of the…

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.

Continue reading Apples Contracting Pty Ltd v Lab45 Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Apples Contracting Pty Ltd v Lab45 Pty Ltd [2016] QCAT 247
Case: [2016] QCAT 247
Decision Date: 20 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Apples Contracting Pty Ltd filed a proceeding against Lab45 Pty Ltd in the Local Court of New South Wales. The claim arose from an alleged breach of a contractual agreement between the parties, with Apples Contracting seeking damages for the breach. Lab45 Pty Ltd did not file an appearance to defend the proceeding, and a default decision was subsequently entered against it on 20 April 2016. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Lab45 Pty Ltd filed an application to set aside the default decision and an application for representation. The primary issues for the court to decide were whether the application for representation was to be granted, whether the service of the originating process on Lab45 Pty Ltd was properly effected, and whether the default decision was irregularly entered.

The court first addressed the application for representation. It noted that there was no evidence of legal representation at the time the originating process was served and that there had been no communication between the parties indicating a potential conflict of interest. Given the absence of any grounds to grant the application, the court refused the application for representation. The court then considered whether the service of the originating process on Lab45 Pty Ltd was properly effected. Lab45 Pty Ltd argued that the service was invalid as it was not served on an officer or employee of the corporation, but rather on an individual who was not authorised to accept service on behalf of the company. The court found that the service was valid as it was delivered to an address of the corporation and the individual who accepted service was a person who could reasonably be expected to receive service on behalf of the corporation. Lastly, the court examined whether the default decision was irregularly entered. Lab45 Pty Ltd argued that the default decision should be set aside as the service of the originating process was invalid. However, the court found that the service was valid, and as such, the default decision was not irregularly entered.

The court concluded that the application for representation was to be refused and that the application to set aside the default decision was also to be refused. No orders were made to set aside the default decision, and the default judgment remains in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for representation filed by the Respondent on 23 May 2016 is refused.

2. The Respondent’s application to set aside the default decision of 20 April 2016 is refused.

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.