Harbour Day Spa Pty Ltd v Three Harmony Australia Pty Ltd

CITATION:

Harbour Day Spa Pty Ltd v Three Harmony Australia Pty Ltd [2012] QCAT 140

PARTIES:	Harbour Day Spa Pty Ltd
v
Three Harmony Australia Pty Ltd

APPLICATION NUMBER:

RSL081-11

MATTER TYPE:

Retail shop leases matters

HEARING DATE:

2 April 2012

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Ms Michelle Howard, Member

DELIVERED ON:

2 April 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

STRIKING OUT – where tribunal does not have jurisdiction – where application misconceived

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 47
Retail Shop Leases Act 1994, s 103

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Harbour Day Spa Pty Ltd filed a notice of dispute about a retail shop lease, between itself as tenant, and Three Harmony Australia Pty Ltd, as landlord, on 8 August 2011. Mediation was scheduled, but did not result in the resolution of the dispute. The mediator then referred the notice of dispute to the QCAT.
The notice of dispute seeks orders for a 20% reduction of rent for a 12 month period because of difficult economic times.
The parties were notified that a directions hearing was scheduled for 28 September 2011. A representative for Three Harmony Australia attended the directions hearing. There was no appearance for Harbour Day Spa.
Directions were made that both parties provide written submissions within 14 days as to why the application should or should not be struck out under section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (the QCAT Act). It was also directed that issue be determined on the papers.
Neither party has complied with the directions.
Under section 47 of the QCAT Act, an application may be dismissed or struck out if it is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived; lacking in substance; or is otherwise an abuse of process. The tribunal may act under the section on its own initiative.
Under section 103(1) of the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (the RSL Act), QCAT may not hear a retail tenancy dispute about the amount of rent payable under a retail shop lease.
The orders sought by Harbour Day Spa are for a rent reduction. The dispute is a dispute about the amount of rent payable. As provided in section 103 of the RSL Act, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
As the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute, the application is misconceived. It should be struck out.
I make orders accordingly.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings were between Harbour Day Spa Pty Ltd and Three Harmony Australia Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from a claim that the first respondent had breached a franchise agreement by failing to supply goods and services to the applicant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant sought to strike out the proceeding on the basis that the Federal Court of Australia had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.

The central legal issue was whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter or whether the Federal Court had exclusive jurisdiction. The applicant argued that the Federal Court had exclusive jurisdiction and that the Supreme Court should not entertain the proceeding. The respondent contended that the Federal Court's jurisdiction was not exclusive and that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and found that the Federal Court did not have exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. The court held that the proceeding did not involve a matter that fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The court found that the proceeding was not misconceived and dismissed the application to strike out the proceeding. The court held that the proceeding was valid and could proceed in the Supreme Court.

The court dismissed the application to strike out the proceeding. The court found that the proceeding was not misconceived and that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter. The proceeding could therefore proceed in the Supreme Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established