Feeqeela Pty Ltd t/as Hydraulic Solutions v C.H.Buckby Pty Ltd
[2014] QCAT 225
•26 March 2014
| CITATION: | Feeqeela Pty Ltd t/as Hydraulic Solutions v C.H.Buckby Pty Ltd [2014] QCAT 225 |
| PARTIES: | Feeqeela Pty Ltd t/as Hydraulic Solutions (Applicant) |
| v | |
| C.H.Buckby Pty Ltd (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDO56/13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Other minor civil dispute matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Member Howard |
| DELIVERED ON: | 26 March 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The proceeding is transferred to the Magistrates Court at Gladstone. |
| CATCHWORDS: | MINOR CIVIL DIPUTES – APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER TO A COURT – whether counterclaim in excess of the Tribunal’s minor civil disputes jurisdiction – whether proceeding would be more appropriately dealt with by a Magistrates Court which could hear the claim and the counter-claim Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 52 Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] 239 CLR 175 |
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 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
An application was made by Feeqeela Pty Ltd t/as Hydraulic Solutions (‘Hydraulic Solutions’) against C H Buckby Pty Ltd (‘C H Buckby’) in the Tribunal’s minor civil disputes jurisdiction. The claim was filed in the Gladstone registry.
Following an application made by CH Buckby for transfer of the proceedings to the Magistrates Court, I made a decision to transfer them to the Magistrates Court at Gladstone. Hydraulic Solutions has requested reasons for my decision.
Under s 52 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) the Tribunal may transfer a proceeding or part of it to a court of competent jurisdiction in certain specified circumstances. The circumstances specified include that the Tribunal may do so if it considers that the proceeding would be more appropriately dealt with in the court and, if the Tribunal considers it does not have jurisdiction to hear all matters in a proceeding.
Hydraulic Solutions claim is for an amount unpaid in respect of repairs to a hydraulic hammer in the sum of $12,085.34. However, C H Buckby claims that the repairs carried out by Hydraulic Solutions caused further problems with the hammer. It now seeks damages from Hydraulic Solutions for the costs of investigating the problem, loss of a hire contract and repair. The claim it makes is for at least $43,241.60. The Tribunal’s minor civil disputes jurisdiction provides for specified claims up to a limit of $25,000.[1]
[1]QCAT Act, Schedule 3 definitions minor civil dispute and prescribed amount; and QCAT Act, s 12.
C H Buckby submits that both parties are entitled to have their cases heard and determined and to that it is appropriate for the entire dispute to be transferred to the Magistrates Court for hearing since the applicant’s claim and the counter-claim are inextricably linked, involving overlapping factual and legal issues. It says it would be duplication to have separate hearings. Further, C H Buckby submits that there would be cost disadvantages if the dispute were split between two jurisdictions and that it is in the interest of expedition to have all matters dealt with in one jurisdiction.
Hydraulic Solutions submits in essence that the application should not be transferred because Hydraulic Solutions is a family-run company which made only a small profit in the previous financial year, which was experiencing cash flow issues as a result of the unpaid invoice. It was therefore submitted it could not afford for the matter to be transferred to the Magistrates Court. It considers that the work it did was done correctly and that it believes that C H Buckby, in seeking to have the matter transferred to the Magistrates Court, is seeking to intimidate Hydraulic Solutions. In particular, it suggests it would cause hardship if the case was to be heard in Townsville or Brisbane as had been suggested by C H Buckby.
As the High Court has recently observed[2] the resources of courts (and by analogy, tribunals), for resolution of disputes serve ‘… the public as a whole, not merely the parties to the proceedings.’[3] In using court and tribunal resources, efficient hearing arrangements will best serve the needs of the parties and the community.
[2]Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] 239 CLR 175.
[3]Ibid, at 217, [113].
Given the nature of the claims, I am satisfied that they are inextricably linked. I find that it would be inefficient and contrary to the interests of justice for the parties to have to go through two hearing processes in order to have their respective claims determined and that this would also be contrary to efficient use of public resources. I am satisfied that it is appropriate for one hearing to occur in a jurisdiction which can deal with both of those claims at once. The Magistrates Court has jurisdiction to deal with both the claim and the counter-claim.
The application made for transfer does not seek transfer to a particular Magistrates Court (although I can see a reference to correspondence which is before me which refers to the preference of C H Buckby in having the proceedings transferred to Townsville). However, the proceeding was commenced in Gladstone where the repairs were effected by Hydraulic Solutions. I am satisfied that it is appropriate for the proceedings to be transferred to the Magistrates Court at Gladstone rather than to some other venue. Of course, the Magistrates Court will now, following these orders, make such arrangements for the conduct of the proceeding as it sees fit.
0
0