DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Credit Corp Services Pty Limited v Tang [2017] QDC 247
PARTIES:
CREDIT CORP SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(ACN 082 928 872)
(appellant)v
LUCKY TANG
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
APPEAL NO: 103/17
DIVISION:
Appellate
PROCEEDING:
Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Magistrates Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:
3 October 2017
DELIVERED AT:
Cairns
HEARING DATE:
14 September 2017.
JUDGE:
Morzone QC DCJ
ORDER:
The appellant has leave to appeal.1.
Appeal allowed.2.
The judgment and orders of the Magistrates Court made on 26 May 2017 are set aside.3.
The proceeding is remitted to the Magistrates Court at Cairns for rehearing and determination according to law before a different magistrate in due course.4.
Unless either party applies for, or the parties otherwise agree to, a different costs order within 14 days of this judgment:5.
the respondent will pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis; and(a)
an indemnity certificate pursuant to ss 15(2) and 16(1)(a) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act(b) 1973 (Qld) is granted to the respondent in respect of the costs of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL – PROCEDURE - EVIDENCE – by assignee of debt for credit card issued after online application – whether defendant disputes ever making such an application by himself or by agent – debt disputed - where case dismissed during the course of plaintiff’s opening and before evidence started – where application sought for short adjournment - whether deed of assignment of debt business record of assignee – whether evidence admissible only through assignor under s 199 Property law Act 1974 (Qld) - mode of hearing of appeal– error of law.
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – APPEAL COSTS FUND – POWER TO GRANT INDEMNITY CERTIFICATE – WHEN GRANTED – where respondent entitled to an indemnity certificate pursuant to s 15(1) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) – where appeal had succeeded on question of law – whether an indemnity certificate should be granted.
Legislation
District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 113.
Magistrates Courts Act 1921 (Qld) s 45(1), 45(5)
Queensland Civil andAdministrative Tribunal Act 2009
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 765(1), 766(1)(c)Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld), s 16(2)
Appeal Costs Fund Regulation 2010, s 5(b)(i)-(v)Cases
Agnew v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2001] 2 AC 710
Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27
Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172American Express International Inc v Hewitt [1993] 2 Qd R 352
Anning v Anning (1907) 4 CLR 1049
AON Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
ASIC v Rich [2005] NSWSC 417Austino Wentworthville Pty Ltd v Metroland Australia Ltd [2013] NSWCA 59
BAS (QLD) Pty Ltd v Complete Taxi Management Pty Ltd [2016] QDC 54
CIC Insurances Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Credit Corp Services Pty Limited v Tang 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] QDC 247
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The District Court considered whether the Magistrates Court erred in law by dismissing the proceeding without allowing any evidence to be presented. The Court also examined whether the deed of assignment of the debt was properly admitted as a business record of the plaintiff under the Uniform Evidence Acts. The Court found that the Magistrates Court did err in law by dismissing the proceeding without allowing evidence, and that the deed of assignment was properly admitted as a business record. The Court further considered the issue of indemnity certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) and found that it should be granted to the respondent.
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and orders of the Magistrates Court were set aside. The proceeding was remitted to the Magistrates Court for rehearing and determination according to law before a different magistrate. The respondent was granted an indemnity certificate in respect of the costs of the appeal, and unless the parties otherwise agreed, the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appellant has leave to appeal.1.
Appeal allowed.2.
The judgment and orders of the Magistrates Court made on 26 May 2017 are set aside.3.
The proceeding is remitted to the Magistrates Court at Cairns for rehearing and determination according to law before a different magistrate in due course.4.
Unless either party applies for, or the parties otherwise agree to, a different costs order within 14 days of this judgment:5.
the respondent will pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis; and(a)
an indemnity certificate pursuant to ss 15(2) and 16(1)(a) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act(b) 1973 (Qld) is granted to the respondent in respect of the costs of the appeal.
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.