Biacsi v Lotz

[2013] QCAT 167

CITATION: Biacsi v Lotz [2013] QCAT 167

PARTIES:	Ernie Biacsi (Applicant)
v
Antoine Theodore Lotz (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: MCDO3133-12

MATTER TYPE: Other minor civil disputes matters

HEARING DATE: 1 February 2013

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Paul Favell, Member

DELIVERED ON: 1 February 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.     The application for joinder of a party is refused.

2.     The application to transfer the hearing to Beenleigh is granted.

3.     The application for telephone attendance is granted.  The Applicant to file and serve any further material on which he seeks to rely on the Respondent at least 3 business days before the hearing date.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION TO JOIN A PARTY – whether order joining a party should be made

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 42

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Ernie Biasci
RESPONDENT:	Antoine Theodore Lutz

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 1 February 2013, I refused a request to join a party to the application.  A request for reasons has been made.

2. Section 42 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (QCAT Act) allows the Tribunal to make an order joining a person as a party to a proceeding if the Tribunal concludes that:

   (a)  the person should be bound by or have the benefit of a decision of the tribunal in the proceeding; or

   (b)  the person’s interests may be affected by the proceeding; or

   (c)  for another reason, it is desirable that the person be joined as a party to the proceeding.

3. I did not consider any of those circumstances applied such that I should join any person to the proceeding.

4. The Respondent requested that June Lillian Phillips be made a “co-defendant”.  No reasons for that request were given.  The Applicant opposed the order on the basis that the Respondent could bring an action against Ms Phillips and those proceedings were an entirely separate matter.  I agreed and did not consider there was any benefit in joining Ms Phillips and instead such joinder would likely delay the matter, involve extra costs and introduce matters not relevant to the claim.

5. The Applicant’s claim is that he purchased a boat from the Respondent on the basis of an advertisement describing the boat as a 2006 model Sea Ray Bow Rider.  It is alleged that the boat is not as advertised, and was in fact a stolen boat, and the Applicant seeks a return of the money paid for the boat.

6. The Respondent says he purchased the boat from Ms Phillips and he feels she should take responsibility for the matter.  No other reason is advanced.

7. For the reasons given earlier an order joining Ms Phillips should not be made.