Gabler v Williams

[2024] QCATA 44

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Gabler v Williams [2024] QCATA 44

PARTIES:

HANS KARSTEN GABLER

(applicant/appellant)

v

DEREK WILLIAMS

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL153-22

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO3-22

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

11 April 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Richard Oliver

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – where applicant brought claim for debt or liquidated demand – whether claim liquidated damages = whether “minor civil dispute” as defined.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 209 s 143(3)(a)(i)

Rintoul v State of Queensland & Ors [2018] QCA 20

Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v McDermott

[2016] HCA 22

Terera v Clifford [2017] QCA 181

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is an appeal from an on the papers decision of a Tribunal Adjudicator as to whether the claim brought by the applicant against the respondent was for a debt or liquidated demand  within the definition of “minor civil dispute” in Schedule 3 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009. The definition provides that minor civil dispute includes:

   A claim to recover a debt or liquidated demand of money up to the prescribed amount.[1]

   [1]The prescribed amount is $25,000.00

2. There seemed to be an informal agreement between the parties that the applicant would help the respondent construct a CNC board for his computer. The applicant was to use his tools and equipment for the work. As the learned adjudicator pointed out, the material suggests this was an arrangement between friends and there is no evidence of a contract for this work. That is, where the general terms of an agreement were discussed and an hourly rate for the work was agreed to.

3. The total claim made is for $5,867.00 made up of labour charges ($840.00) and the balance the value of equipment and tools left at the respondents residence. Included in the claim is $225 for legal costs incurred when the applicant engaged a solicitor to write a letter of demand.

4. As the learned adjudicator said in her reasons that the Tribunal is a creature of statute and the powers conferred on are contained in the QCAT Act. It has no power to determine disputes between parties where the claim involves damages to be ascertained or arrived at by the decision maker, in other words an unliquidated amount or the return of property. As Justice Alan Wilson, President explained in Hill v Berghofer [2011] QCATA 34 at [7]:

   A ‘debt or liquidated demand’ is ... one where the amount is determined and, in effect, beyond dispute as to how it is calculated. If the amount depends upon assessment by the court or tribunal, it is not liquidated

5. This is clearly the case with respect to the claim except perhaps for the…