DB v CB - [2023] QCAT 511

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

DB v CB [2023] QCAT 511

PARTIES:

DB

(applicant)

v

CB

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

Q176/23, Q177/23 & Q178/23

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

20 December 2023

HEARING DATE:

24 August 2023

HEARD AT:

Southport

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Alan Walsh

ORDERS:

1.     A non-publication Order is made in respect of the parties’ actual names, addresses and contact details.

2.     The Applicant’s application for an order that Applications for minor civil dispute – minor debt claims Q176/23, Q177/23, and Q178/23 be heard separately is refused.

3.     The Applications for minor civil dispute – minor debt claims Q176/23, Q177/23, and Q178/23 are dismissed for abuse of process.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – minor civil disputes – minor debt claims – where debts claimed pursuant to indemnity order in Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – where claims split across three applications – whether claims impermissibly split – whether claim splitting an abuse of tribunal process – whether claims pursuant to family court ordered indemnity justiciable in tribunal – whether tribunal possessed of federal court jurisdiction – whether tribunal can enforce family court orders – whether QCAT appropriate jurisdiction in which to bring proceedings – whether claims an abuse of process

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISMISSAL – whether proceedings should be dismissed pursuant to s 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), Chapter 11, Part 11.1, Division 11.1.1, r 11.07
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 47

FH as trustee for the FH Trust v TS as trustee for the TS Trust [2022] QCAT 105
Garrett v L J Hooker Cleveland [2018] QCATA 134
Lu v Petrou [2011] QSC 57
Tomlinson v Ramsay Food Processing Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 507

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

In person

Respondent:

In person

REASONS FOR DECISION

Family Court context

I have de-identified the parties because these Applications for minor civil dispute – minor debt arise from final orders made in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (‘FCAFCA’) adjusting matrimonial property rights in respect of the pool of matrimonial assets accumulated during their former marriage.
Of my own motion, I will make a non-publication order in respect of the parties’ actual names, addresses, and contact details.

The 3 MCD Applications

DB simultaneously filed the three separate minor civil debt (‘MCD’) Applications in Q176/23, Q177/23 and Q178/23 with the Tribunal Registry at Southport on 28 March 2023 and served them on CB on Easter Sunday (9 April 2023) when in the Applicant’s words she “picked up boys at mum’s place.”
The Applications have much in common. They each relate to costs associated with the same matrimonial property the subject of the FCAFCA proceedings. Each claim relies on the terms of Court ordered indemnity in conjunction…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read DB v CB 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] QCAT 511
Decision Date: 20 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the tribunal involved a dispute between DB (the applicant) and CB (the respondent) over minor debt claims that originated from an indemnity order issued by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The claims were split across three separate applications filed in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The applicant sought to have the claims heard separately, while the respondent argued that the claims were improperly split and constituted an abuse of the tribunal process. The tribunal was required to determine whether the claims were improperly split, if the splitting of claims constituted an abuse of the tribunal process, and whether the QCAT had the jurisdiction to hear claims pursuant to a family court ordered indemnity. Additionally, the tribunal considered if the QCAT was the appropriate jurisdiction and whether the claims constituted an abuse of process warranting summary dismissal under s 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

The tribunal found that the claims were improperly split and constituted an abuse of process. The court held that the claims were not justiciable in QCAT as they were derived from a family court ordered indemnity, and QCAT did not possess the federal court jurisdiction to enforce family court orders. The tribunal concluded that QCAT was not the appropriate jurisdiction for these claims and that the splitting of the claims was an abuse of process. Consequently, the tribunal exercised its discretion under s 47 of the Act to dismiss the proceedings.

In light of the findings, the tribunal made a non-publication order to protect the privacy of the parties. The tribunal refused the applicant's request to hear the claims separately and dismissed the proceedings for abuse of process. This decision underscores the importance of proper jurisdiction and the need to avoid abuse of the tribunal process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. A non-publication Order is made in respect of the parties’ actual names, addresses and contact details.

2. The Applicant’s application for an order that Applications for minor civil dispute – minor debt claims Q176/23, Q177/23, and Q178/23 be heard separately is refused.

3. The Applications for minor civil dispute – minor debt claims Q176/23, Q177/23, and Q178/23 are dismissed for abuse of process.

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.