Baker v Arkman Pty Ltd

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Baker v Arkman Pty Ltd [2014] QDC 165

PARTIES:

IAN WILLIAM BAKER
(appellant)

v

ARKMAN PTY LTD ACN 064361057 AS TRUSTEE UNDER INSTRUMENT 706741864
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D 214/13

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

Thursday 7^th August

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

6^th June; written submissions received up to 27 June

JUDGE:

Robertson DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL : where respondent successfully sued appellant pursuant to a guarantee as part of its lease with a company now deregistered for unpaid GST; whether on a proper construction of relevant terms of the lease the respondent was entitled to issue and claim GST on rent and outgoings retrospectively and well after the term had expired; whether respondent had proved a liability to pay GST

LEAVE TO APPEAL : where judgment obtained was less than the minor civil dispute limit and where appellant had not applied for leave to appeal; where point not taken by respondent in its initial opposition to the appeal; whether leave to appeal should be granted ; whether any “important principle of law or justice is involved”

COUNSEL:

Mr Baker appeared for himself

Mr van de Beld of Counsel for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Ferguson Cannon Lawyers for respondent

1. On 22 November 2013 in the Maroochydore Magistrates Court, his Honour Magistrate Hodgins gave judgment for the respondent (Arkman) in the sum of $14,662.70 plus interest of $2,992.65, and ordered the appellant (Baker) to pay Arkman’s costs.  On 19 December 2013 Baker, who represented himself, filed a notice of appeal which relied on only one ground:  (that) “important facts relevant to the defendant’s case were omitted, not answered or presented”.  This rather meaningless ground is articulated to some extent in Baker’s outline filed 3 February 2014.  I will return to his outline later.

The appeal

1. The appeal is pursuant to s 45 of the Magistrates Court Act 1921.  Section 45 is relevantly in the following terms:

“45 Appeal

(1)Subject to this Act, any party who is dissatisfied with the judgment or order of a Magistrates Court—

(a)       in an action in which the amount involved is more than the minor civil dispute limit;   

…

may appeal to the District Court as prescribed by the rules.

(2)       Provided that—

(a)       where in any of the cases above referred to in subsection (1) the amount is not more than the minor civil dispute limit, an appeal shall lie by leave of the District Court or a District Court judge, who shall not grant such leave to appeal unless the court or judge is satisfied that some important principle of law or justice is involved; …”

1. Section 45(5) defines minor civil dispute limit as meaning the amount that is for the time being the prescribed amount under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.  It is common ground that, as at the time of these proceedings and now, that amount is $25,000.  It follows that…