Deo v Singh - [2023] QCAT 220

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Deo v Singh & Anor [2023] QCAT 220

PARTIES:

SONEEL DEO

(applicant)

SUKHVIR SINGH

QUEENSLAND VEDIC CULTURAL CENTRE PTY LTD, ABN 27 600 692 279

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO:

MCDO524/21

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matter

DELIVERED ON:

31 May 2023

HEARING DATE:

23 November 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator LeMass

Adjudicator Scott-Mackenzie

ORDERS:

The second respondent, Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd, pay to the applicant, Mr Soneel Deo, $1,123.20 within 14 days of this order.

CATCHWORDS:

MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – action for debt – where monies paid to voluntary association for a share in the association – whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide the proceeding – whether director had the authority of the board of directors of association to obtain funding from members by the sale of shares in the association – whether the money paid was to purchase a share or a donation – whether the money is repayable

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 126, s 127

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 11, schedule 3

Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd & Ors (MCDO 60589/20) (heard on 22 November 2022).

Pal v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd & Anor (MCDO 60617/20) (heard on 22 November 2022).
Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd (MCDO 60610/22) (heard on 23 November 2022)
Prasad v Singh & Anor (MCDO 523/21) (heard on 24 November 2022)
Junker v Hepburn [2010] NSWSC 88

Colin R Price & Associates Pty Ltd v Four Oaks Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 764

Singh v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd (MCDO 970/20, decided on 18 May 2021)
Prasad v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] QCATA 174

Hill v Berghofer [2011] QCATA 34
Ziegeler t/a Ziegco Pty Ltd v Recochem Incorporated [2010] QCATA 78

Spain v Union Steamship Co. of New Zealand Ltd (1923) 32 CLR 138

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

First respondent:

Second respondent:

Self-represented

Mr Sukarm Singh

Dr Sukhvir Singh

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction
[1]This proceeding, and four other proceedings arising out of similar facts, were heard by this Tribunal on 22, 23 and 24 November 2022.[1] The decision in each proceeding should be read together.
[1]Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd Ors (MCDO 60589/20) (heard on 22 November 2022); Pal v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd & Anor (MCDO 60617/20) (heard on 22 November 2022); Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd (MCDO 60610/20) (heard on 23 November 2022); Prasad v Singh & Anor (MCDO 523/21) (heard on 24 November 2022).
[2]For the reasons in this proceeding following, the decision of the Tribunal is that the second respondent, Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd (QVCC), pay to the applicant, Mr Soneel Deo (Mr Soneel Deo), $1,123.20, $1,000.00 in respect of the share in QVCC he agreed to purchase but did not receive together with $123.20 the…

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.

Continue reading Deo v Singh

Details

AGLC: Deo v Singh [2023] QCAT 220
Case: [2023] QCAT 220
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceeding was brought by Soneel Deo against Dr Sukhvir Singh and Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd (QVCC), a Queensland incorporated company, for the recovery of a debt of $1,240.00 together with the fee for filing the application of $123.20, a total of $1,363.20. Mr Deo claimed he paid the money to QVCC to purchase a share in the company but did not receive the share. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal were whether it had jurisdiction to hear and decide the proceeding, whether the money paid was to purchase a share in QVCC or a donation, and whether the money was repayable. The Tribunal found the claim fell within the definition of minor civil dispute and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and decide the proceeding. The Tribunal found the money paid by Mr Deo to QVCC was to purchase a share in the company and was not a donation. The Tribunal found Mr Deo was entitled to the order sought in respect of the principal sum paid for the share in QVCC not issued to him. The decision of the Tribunal was that QVCC pay to Mr Deo $1,123.20, $1,000.00 in respect of the share in QVCC he agreed to purchase but did not receive together with $123.20 the fee on filing the application in the proceeding, within 14 days of this order.

Orders