Bannink v Solar Energy Group Pty Ltd

CITATION: Bannink v Solar Energy Group Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 148

PARTIES:	Willem Johan Bannink (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Solar Energy Group Pty Ltd (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:   APL003-12

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Justice Alan Wilson, President

DELIVERED ON: 21 August 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:     

1.    Application for leave to appeal granted.

2.    Appeal allowed.

3.    Set aside the decision of 20 December 2011 and return the matter to the Tribunal for re-hearing.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – liquidated demand for money – Magistrate failed to allow appellant to produce evidence – lack of procedural fairness resulted in an error of law – leave to appeal granted

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 11, 143 (a) (i), 146

Spain v Union Steamship Co of New Zealand LPD (1923) 32 CLR 138
University of Ceylon v Fernando [1960] 1 WLR 223, Privy Council

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Ridge v Baldwyn (1964) AC 40

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd (2009) 1 Qd R 41

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 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr Bannink says he was engaged by Solar Energy Group Pty Ltd to assist it in an enterprise involving solar energy and the renewable energy industry, with the particular goal of supplying solar systems to schools in Queensland.  He claimed that Solar Energy had not fully paid him for the work he did under the agreement and brought proceedings in QCAT’s Minor Civil Disputes jurisdiction for $20,478.77.

1. With his application he filed an invoice he sent to Solar Energy claiming $7,478.77 for expenses after May 2010.  He also filed a number of other documents, none of which, however, clearly explained the basis for the additional claim of $13,000 although it is possible to detect, amongst his papers, that the claim involved what he said was two months’ salary of $6,500 per month.

1. He also named, in his MCD claim, Ms Gabreilla Matacchioni as a respondent, apparently on the basis that she is, or was, a director of Solar Energy.

1. Solar Energy and Ms Matacchioni provided a response in the MCD proceedings denying the agreement, or any indebtedness to Mr Bannink.

1. The matter came on before a Magistrate, sitting as a QCAT member, on 21 December 2011.  The recording of that proceeding shows that the learned Magistrate indicated, at the outset, that he had read the papers filed by all the parties for and against the application and was not persuaded QCAT had jurisdiction because Mr Bannink’s claim was not a dispute for a liquidated amount and, the learned Magistrate said, there was no evidence of any contract or agreement between the parties.  He then dismissed the claim for want of jurisdiction.

1. Mr Bannink seeks leave to appeal that decision.  He says…