Gth Accounting Group Pty Ltd v Arundel - [2015] QMC 12

MAGISTRATES COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Gth Accounting Group Pty Ltd v Arundel & Anor [2015] QMC 12

PARTIES:

Gth Accounting Group Pty Ltd
(applicant)

v

Geoff Arundel & Heather Arundel
(respondents)

FILE NO/S:

Q 82/15

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Civil Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Toowoomba Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

27 July 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Toowoomba Magistrates Court

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

MAGISTRATE:

G Lee

ORDER:

The application for substituted service is dismissed. An extension of time to effect service in accordance with the rules is granted to 30 September 2015.

CATCHWORDS:
CITATIONS:

Application – substituted service – whether sufficient evidence to prove personal service impractical – whether sufficient evidence to prove proposed method of service will likely come to the attention of the respondents

Application – extension of time for service – rules provide for service within 28 days – application made 14 days after filing of original claim – no explanation given as to why this application was brought then - whether relief should be granted

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 35, s 36, s 37, s 61

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009, r 19, r 38, r 40
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 116.

BOQ Equipment Finance Limited v For Ball Pty Ltd & Ors [2015] QDC 105
Bunnings Group Limited v Lockwood & Anor [2014] QDC 94
Embrey v Smart [2014] QCA 75
ING Bank (Australia) Limited v Clark [2014] QDC 74
Kendall v Sweeney & Ors [2002] QSC 404
Legal Services Commissioner v Rider-Bell [2011] QCAT 669
Suncorp-Metway Ltd v Agnew [2015] QSC 195

On 4 June 2015 the applicant filed an “Application for minor civil dispute – minor debt” (“primary application”) in the Magistrates Court in Toowoomba exercising jurisdiction in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) claiming $3187.80 from the respondents for accounting services provided. The claim is for a liquidated demand of money so is a minor debt claim as defined[1].
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009, Schedule “Dictionary”; QCAT Act, Schedule 3.

By covering letter dated 17 June 2015 commercial agents for the applicant (Challenge Commercial Collections) forwarded an application in QCAT’s pro –forma “Form number 42” seeking an extension of time for service of the primary application and an order for substituted service to QCAT in Toowoomba. It was filed 18 June 2015, only 14 days after the filing of the primary application. No other material was filed in support of the application for extension of time and substituted service.

This application is determined on the papers pursuant to section 32(2) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

A proceeding is started once the primary application is accepted by the registrar of the Tribunal: s 35 & s 36 QCAT Act. Section 37(2) QCAT Act provides that the applicant must give a copy of the primary application to each party within 28 days of the registrar’s acceptance of it: rule 19 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (QCAT rules). Here,…

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 Gth Accounting Group Pty Ltd v Arundel 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: [2015] QMC 12
Decision Date: 27 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gth Accounting Group Pty Ltd sought substituted service of its claim against Arundel. The application was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Edelman. The primary legal issues were whether there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that personal service was impractical and whether there was sufficient evidence to show that the proposed method of service would likely come to the attention of the respondents. Additionally, the court considered whether an extension of time for service should be granted, given the rules provide for service within 28 days, with the application made 14 days after the original claim was filed, without any explanation for the delay.

The court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that personal service was impractical, nor had they demonstrated that the proposed method of service would likely reach the respondents. The court emphasised the importance of providing evidence to support such claims and noted that the applicant had not met the required standard. Regarding the extension of time, the court acknowledged the rules' provision for service within 28 days but granted an extension to 30 September 2015, considering the applicant's lack of explanation for the delay in bringing the application.

The court concluded that while the application for substituted service was dismissed, an extension of time for service was warranted under the circumstances. This decision highlights the necessity for applicants to provide robust evidence to support their claims and to promptly seek extensions when necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for substituted service is dismissed. An extension of time to effect service in accordance with the rules is granted to 30 September 2015.

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:	Gth Accounting Group Pty Ltd v Arundel & Anor [2015] QMC 12
PARTIES:	Gth Accounting Group Pty Ltd (applicant) v Geoff Arundel & Heather Arundel (respondents)
FILE NO/S:	Q 82/15
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Civil Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Toowoomba Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON:	27 July 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Toowoomba Magistrates Court
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
MAGISTRATE:	G Lee
ORDER:	The application for substituted service is dismissed. An extension of time to effect service in accordance with the rules is granted to 30 September 2015.
CATCHWORDS: CITATIONS:	Application – substituted service – whether sufficient evidence to prove personal service impractical – whether sufficient evidence to prove proposed method of service will likely come to the attention of the respondents Application – extension of time for service – rules provide for service within 28 days – application made 14 days after filing of original claim – no explanation given as to why this application was brought then - whether relief should be granted Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 35, s 36, s 37, s 61 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009, r 19, r 38, r 40 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 116. BOQ Equipment Finance Limited v For Ball Pty Ltd & Ors [2015] QDC 105 Bunnings Group Limited v Lockwood & Anor [2014] QDC 94 Embrey v Smart [2014] QCA 75 ING Bank (Australia) Limited v Clark [2014] QDC 74 Kendall v Sweeney & Ors [2002] QSC 404 Legal Services Commissioner v Rider-Bell [2011] QCAT 669 Suncorp-Metway Ltd v Agnew [2015] QSC 195