| CITATION: | Hartley v Bennette [2014] QCAT 091 |
| PARTIES: | Deborah Ann Hartley (Applicant) |
| V | |
| Jerry Bennette (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | BDL263-13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Building matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Member Gordon |
| DELIVERED ON: | 18 March 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. On the preliminary issue whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction in this matter because its only connection with Queensland is that the Applicant lives in the State, the answer is in the affirmative. 2. The Application is struck out because it is not within the Tribunal’s building jurisdiction nor is it a minor civil dispute; therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine it. 3. The Respondent’s application for legal representation is refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Claim in relation to sale of land situated in New South Wales – only connection with Queensland is that Applicant lives in the State - whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim due to territorial limits – whether the correct form under the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) was served with the claim – whether any such irregularity was waived – whether the claim is between a trader and a consumer or for a debt or liquidated demand of money Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 5, 11, 12, 33, Schedule 3 Laurie v Carroll (1958) 98 CLR 310 |
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 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
This is a preliminary issue on the question whether or not the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim bearing in mind that its subject matter (land) is in New South Wales, the law which applies to the claim is that…
Continue reading Hartley v Bennette
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hartley v Bennette [2014] QCAT 91
- Case
- [2014] QCAT 91
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The tribunal concluded that it did have jurisdiction over the matter, as the only connection to Queensland was that the applicant resided in the state. However, the tribunal found that the claim was not within its building jurisdiction nor was it a minor civil dispute, as defined in the legislation. Consequently, the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim. The tribunal also refused the respondent's application for legal representation.
The tribunal's reasoning was based on the statutory provisions defining its jurisdiction and the nature of the claim. The tribunal determined that, while it had jurisdiction over the matter due to the applicant's residence in Queensland, the claim did not fall within the categories of disputes that the tribunal could hear. As such, the application was struck out. The respondent's application for legal representation was also denied.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. On the preliminary issue whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction in this matter because its only connection with Queensland is that the Applicant lives in the State, the answer is in the affirmative.
2. The Application is struck out because it is not within the Tribunal’s building jurisdiction nor is it a minor civil dispute; therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine it.
3. The Respondent’s application for legal representation is refused.
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.