Griffith v Seuren - [2019] QCATA 181

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Griffith v Seuren [2019] QCATA 181

PARTIES: JOHN GRIFFITH

(applicant/appellant)

v

BRONWYN SEUREN

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL037-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

Southport MCDO00554/18

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

10 October 2019

HEARING DATE:

8 October 2019
9 October 2019

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr J R Forbes, Member

ORDERS:

1.       Griffith’s application for leave to appeal is granted.

2.       Griffith’s appeal against the judgment and orders against him is allowed, and to that extent only the orders of the primary tribunal are set aside.

3.       Griffith is removed as a party to these proceedings.

4.       The orders of the primary tribunal in favour of Seuren and against European Design Pty Ltd are affirmed.

5.       No order as to costs of this appeal

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – CONSUMER TRANSACTION – where orders made against the respondent company and an individual – whether the individual is properly a party to the proceedings – whether the individual a party to the subject consumer purchase – whether material documentation establishes that the individual as well as the company is a proper party – where individual applies to be removed as a party – where leave to appeal and individual’s appeal allowed

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1.5.1

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32, s 142

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 2 AC 415

Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22

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

This case calls up the ghost of Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd[1] in which England’s highest court defined the distinct legal status of limited liability companies. Salomon is affirmed in section 1.5.1 of the modern Corporations Act 2001 (Cth):
As far as the law is concerned, a company has a separate legal existence that is distinct from that of its owners, managers, operators, employees and agents. A company has its own property, its own rights and obligations. A company’s money and other assets belong to the company and must be used for the company’s purposes.
In January 2018 the respondent Bronwyn Seuren (`Seuren’) purchased items of furniture stocked by a firm known as European Design Pty Ltd (`European’). At all material times European was a company duly incorporated according to law. [2] The present question is whether the Seuren’s vendor was the legal entity European or a natural person, namely the Appellant John Griffith, or both.
[1][1897] AC 22.
[2]Extract from ASIC rccords dated 19 December 2018.
Seuren’s case is that her contract is with Griffith personally. Griffith denies that allegation, and asserts that her rights, such as they are, are against European only.
On 30 January 2019 the Tribunal ordered:
(a)The Respondents [European and Griffith] jointly and severally will pay to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Griffith v Seuren 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] QCATA 181
Decision Date: 10 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Griffith v Seuren, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia addressed an appeal concerning a minor civil dispute involving a consumer transaction. The respondent, Seuren, sought relief against both an individual, Griffith, and a company, European Design Pty Ltd, in relation to a consumer purchase. The individual, Griffith, applied for leave to appeal and sought to be removed from the proceedings, contending that he was not a proper party to the dispute. The primary tribunal had ordered relief against both Griffith and the company, but Griffith argued that he was not a party to the consumer transaction in question and that the material documentation did not establish him as a proper party to the proceedings.

The court was required to determine whether Griffith was properly a party to the proceedings and if the material documentation substantiated that he was involved in the consumer transaction with Seuren. The court had to assess whether Griffith's involvement in the transaction was such that he was a necessary party to the dispute and if the orders made against him were justified. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the application for leave to appeal and Griffith's request to be removed as a party to the proceedings.

The court granted Griffith's application for leave to appeal and allowed his appeal against the orders made against him, finding that he was not a proper party to the proceedings. The court held that the material documentation did not establish Griffith as a party to the consumer transaction and thus he should not have been subject to the orders made against him. Consequently, Griffith was removed as a party to the proceedings, and the orders in favour of Seuren and against European Design Pty Ltd were affirmed. The court set aside the orders against Griffith and made no order as to the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Griffith’s application for leave to appeal is granted.

2. Griffith’s appeal against the judgment and orders against him is allowed, and to that extent only the orders of the primary tribunal are set aside.

3. Griffith is removed as a party to these proceedings.

4. The orders of the primary tribunal in favour of Seuren and against European Design Pty Ltd are affirmed.

5. No order as to costs of this appeal

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.

CITATION:	Griffith v Seuren [2019] QCATA 181
PARTIES:	JOHN GRIFFITH
(applicant/appellant)
v
BRONWYN SEUREN
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL037-19
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	Southport MCDO00554/18
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	10 October 2019
HEARING DATE:	8 October 2019 9 October 2019
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Dr J R Forbes, Member
ORDERS:	1. Griffith’s application for leave to appeal is granted. 2. Griffith’s appeal against the judgment and orders against him is allowed, and to that extent only the orders of the primary tribunal are set aside. 3. Griffith is removed as a party to these proceedings. 4. The orders of the primary tribunal in favour of Seuren and against European Design Pty Ltd are affirmed. 5. No order as to costs of this appeal
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – CONSUMER TRANSACTION – where orders made against the respondent company and an individual – whether the individual is properly a party to the proceedings – whether the individual a party to the subject consumer purchase – whether material documentation establishes that the individual as well as the company is a proper party – where individual applies to be removed as a party – where leave to appeal and individual’s appeal allowed Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1.5.1 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32, s 142 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 2 AC 415 Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22
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)