GHD Pty Ltd v Consolidated Tin Mines Pty Ltd
[2016] QCAT 133
•14 June 2016
| CITATION: | GHD Pty Ltd v Consolidated Tin Mines Pty Ltd [2016] QCAT 133 |
| PARTIES: | GHD Pty Ltd (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Consolidated Tin Mines Pty Ltd (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDO397-16; MCDO398-16 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Other minor civil dispute matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Adjudicator Bertelsen |
| DELIVERED ON: | 14 June 2016 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Applications MCDO397/16 & MCDO 398/16 are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Minor Debt applications – professional services – same provider and same recipient of services – whether separate claims can be made – abuse of process |
APPEARANCES:
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
GHD Pty Ltd (‘GHD’) alleges it was commissioned to provide services to Consolidated Tin Mines Pty Ltd. It is one service provider claiming for services rendered to one recipient corporation. Whether that involved one, two or three jobs is not the point. Here there is a total claim against the one corporation. There is no reason why those jobs cannot be pursued as a single claim.
Put conversely, if the totality of the two claims was less than $25,000.00, the jurisdictional limit of the Minor Civil Disputes – Minor Debt jurisdiction, then no doubt the two claims would have been consolidated for the purpose of hearing.
This is simply a case of one applicant, one respondent, and one claim for professional services rendered. In this instance, the separation into two individual claims is an unnecessary artificial mechanism.
0
0
0