MAGISTRATES COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Fin One Pty Ltd v Kucharski [2017] QMC 17
PARTIES:
FIN ONE PTY LTD ACN 139 719 903
(Applicant)v
ADAM MICAEL KUCHARSKI
(Respondent)FILE NO/S:
M3826/17
DIVISION:
Magistrates Court
PROCEEDING:
Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
21 September 2017
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
4 August 2017
ACTING MAGISTRATE:
R Carmody
ORDER:
The application is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
INFERIOR COURTS – MAGISTRATES COURT – JURISDICTION – POWER TO ORDER SEIZURE OF DETAINED GOODS AND GIVE DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – Where the respondent defaults on loan contract for a car – Whether a Magistrates Court has power by virtue of its civil jurisdiction under s4 Magistrates Court Act 1921 to order seizure, make declarations and mandatory injunctions to others including police – The limits of Magistrates Court general jurisdiction – Scope of “personal action” - Subject matter and monetary limits - Relief where goods are wrongfully detained – Form of judgment in detinue claims in Magistrates Court
INVESTED JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRAES COURT – Whether Commonwealth legislation confers broader jurisdiction – Whether the relief claimed is within that jurisdiction
LEGISLATION:
Acts Interpretation Act 1903 (CTH), s 15C
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (QLD), s 49A
Civil Proceedings Act 2011, ss 5(c), 80
Criminal Code, s 267
Magistrates Court Act 1921, s 4
Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth), ss 5, 10, 110, 115, 123, 128, 142, 207
Supreme Court Act 1991
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999
Magistrates Courts Rules 1922 and 1960
CASES:
Binskin v Kangaroo Transport Pty Ltd (1990) 12 MVR 499
Cavanagh v Sach (1877) 3 VLR (L) 259
Frigger v Nigram [2005] WADC 127
GoGetta Equipment Funding Pty Ltd v Mansour MCQ 14 June 2017
Johns v Johns [1988] 1 QLR 138
Kanbur Pty Ltd v Adams (1984) 3 FCR 192
Kirwin v Mason [1968] Q.W.N. 10
Olver v Commissioner of Police; Manz v Commissioner of Police [2013] QDC 9
R v A Stipendiary Magistrate at Brisbane; ex parte Kornhauser [1992] 2 QdR 150
Silver Chef Rentals Pty Ltd v The Alliance of Congalees in the Northern Territory (& Ors) and GoGetta Equipment Funding Pty Ltd v Valamiou 2017 QMC 8
Startune v Ultra Tune Systems [1991] 1 QLR 192
State of Western Australia v Crimmins & Anor [2004] WADC 162
Townpub Pty Ltd v PJ Ryan’s Hotels Pty Ltd [2005] CCT G529-03
Toyota Finance v Dennis (2002) 58 NSWLR 101
Valentine v Eid (1992) 27 NSWLR 615
COUNSEL:
Mr Pitman for the applicant
SOLICITORS:
Morgan Conley for the applicant
No appearance by or for the respondent
The originating application and relieve sought
The applicant applies by originating application:
(a) for a declaration pursuant to s 123 Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) that it be entitled to lawfully repossess a Mitsubishi Triton Utility, the subject of a loan agreement between the parties;
(b) for orders allowing it to lawfully enter upon the respondent’s land;
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Fin One Pty Ltd v Kucharski 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] QMC 17
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court held that the Magistrates Court did not have the power to order the seizure of the car or to issue declarations and mandatory injunctions to others. It concluded that the relief requested exceeded the court's jurisdiction as it involved matters beyond the typical scope of a "personal action" and the monetary limits applicable to Magistrates Courts. The court also found that the Commonwealth legislation did not confer broader jurisdiction to the Magistrates Court in this matter. Therefore, the application was dismissed.
As a result of the court’s decision, Fin One Pty Ltd’s application for seizure of the car and for declarations and mandatory injunctions was dismissed. The court found that the Magistrates Court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to grant the relief requested, thereby upholding the limits of its general civil jurisdiction under section 4 of the Magistrates Court Act 1921.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application is dismissed.
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.