Frost v Matusik

Case [2018] QCAT 192

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Frost v Matusik & Ors [2018] QCAT 192

PARTIES:

KEVIN FROST
(applicant)
v

PETER MATUSIK

(first respondent)

THE TRUSTEE FOR THE SOMERS FAMILY TRUST T/AS PETER HANSEN YACHT BROKERS RABY BAY

(second respondent)

SBM BUSINESS HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 110 668 963 T/AS AQUASURE MARINE

(third respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO 459/17

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

26 June 2018

HEARING DATE:

8 January and 26 February 2018

HEARD AT:

Southport

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Mewing

ORDERS:

1.   The third respondent’s name is amended to SBM Business Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 110 668 963 t/as Aquasure Marine.

2.   The application against the first and second respondents is dismissed;

3.   The third respondent must pay $19,214.81 within 45 days of this order, comprising:

(a)   $18,899.11 compensation; and

(b)   $315.70 filing fee.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where minor civil dispute – where consumer claim – where consumer asserted breach of consumer guarantees relating to services – where trader denied breach

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION –MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE CONDUCT OR FALSE REPRESENTATIONS – MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE CONDUCT GENERALLY – where consumer claimed boat owner and broker engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct – whether boat owner and broker acted in ‘trade or commerce’ – whether broker agent of boat owner

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – CONSUMER GUARANTEES – where consumer claimed trader failed to satisfy consumer guarantees about services – where compensation claimed by consumer – whether services rendered with due care and skill – whether services fit for purpose – whether major failure – whether damages and compensation are recoverable 

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – DISCHARGE, BREACH AND DEFENCES TO ACTION FOR BREACH – PERFORMANCE – where consumer claimed marine mechanic breached contract – whether action can be brought in the QCAT minor civil dispute jurisdiction

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – REMOTENESS AND CAUSATION – GENERAL PRINCIPLES -where consumer claimed loss caused by negligence of marine mechanic – whether action can be brought in the QCAT minor civil disputes jurisdiction

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS AND TRIBUNALS – where consumer claimed all his costs – whether costs recoverable in a minor civil dispute

Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2, ss 18, 29, 60, 61, 236, 267, 2681
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss3, 9, 12, 28, 29, 43, 100, 102

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009, r 14, r 83

ACCC v Homeopathy Plus! Australia Pty Limited [2014] FCA 1412
Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd (1999) 176 ALR 575
Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594
Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31
Fasold & Anor v Roberts & Anor (1997) ATPR 41-561
Houghton v Arms (2006) 225…

Continue reading Frost v Matusik

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Frost v Matusik [2018] QCAT 192
Case
[2018] QCAT 192
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Frost v Matusik is a case that involved a dispute between a consumer and a trader concerning alleged breaches of consumer guarantees relating to services. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The consumer, Frost, alleged that the boat owner and broker engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and breached consumer guarantees about services. The trader, Matusik, denied these claims. The legal issues in the case included whether the boat owner and broker acted in trade or commerce, whether the broker was an agent of the boat owner, and whether the trader failed to satisfy consumer guarantees about services. The court also needed to determine whether the consumer could bring an action for damages and compensation in the QCAT minor civil dispute jurisdiction.

The court examined the nature of the relationship between the parties and whether the boat owner and broker acted in trade or commerce. It also considered whether the broker was an agent of the boat owner and whether the trader satisfied consumer guarantees about services. The court assessed whether the marine mechanic breached the contract and whether the consumer could bring an action for damages and compensation in the QCAT minor civil dispute jurisdiction. The court found that the boat owner and broker did act in trade or commerce and that the broker was an agent of the boat owner. The court also found that the trader failed to satisfy consumer guarantees about services. The court held that the consumer could bring an action for damages and compensation in the QCAT minor civil dispute jurisdiction.

The court ordered that the third respondent's name be amended to SBM Business Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 110 668 963 t/as Aquasure Marine. The application against the first and second respondents was dismissed. The third respondent was ordered to pay $19,214.81 within 45 days of this order, comprising $18,899.11 compensation and $315.70 filing fee. The court held that the consumer could recover damages and compensation in the QCAT minor civil dispute jurisdiction. The court found that the consumer could bring an action for damages and compensation for the marine mechanic's negligence. The court also held that the consumer was not entitled to recover all his costs in a minor civil dispute.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The third respondent’s name is amended to SBM Business Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 110 668 963 t/as Aquasure Marine.

2. The application against the first and second respondents is dismissed;

3. The third respondent must pay $19,214.81 within 45 days of this order, comprising:

(a) $18,899.11 compensation; and

(b) $315.70 filing fee.

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.