HHP v WHP - [2020] QCAT 524

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:
HHP v WHP [2020] QCAT 524

PARTIES: HHP

(applicant)

v

WHP

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO0102/20

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

18 June 2020

HEARING DATE:

18 June 2020

HEARD AT:

Maroochydore

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Lember

ORDERS:

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – minor civil dispute – claim for debt or liquidated demand of money – where parties were married – where debt arose under financial agreement made under the Family Law Act

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 20, s 90C, s 90KA, s 121
Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) s 66
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 11, s 12
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 12, s 29, s 416, s 419(3)

Dyne v Hasbach [2014] QCATA 189

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

Summary of application

This is an application by Mr P[1] to recover as a minor debt the sum of $4,845.96 (plus interest and costs) from the respondent, Mrs P, being the amount of solar rebates/credits the applicant says the respondent wrongly benefited from – or in his words, “stole”[2] – between June 2013 and January 2020.
[1]Parties have been de-identified and pseudonyms adopted for privacy reasons and under section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
[2]Oral evidence given at hearing and emailed submission to the Tribunal dated 25 May 2020.
During the relevant period, the respondent occupied as tenant a property owned by the applicant on terms that such occupancy was to be rent free, save for utilities usage charges. There was no dispute that the respondent paid for her electricity consumption during the period upon production of invoices from the applicant. However, in late 2019 the applicant extracted from the invoices he had received over the period the sum discounted for the “solar rebate” and now seeks in the Tribunal to recover from the respondent of the amount of those credits he says she wrongly received.
The applicant relies upon the terms of a Financial Agreement and a Lease between the parties and in his words, seeks that the Tribunal “honour the terms of our financial agreement and the lease”.[3]
[3]Oral submissions at the hearing.
The application necessarily begs the question of jurisdiction, in respect of which a closer examination of the parties’ legal relationship was necessary.

Parties’ Background

The applicant and the respondent commenced living together in approximately 1989 and married on 25 August 1990.[4]
[4]The Financial Agreement, recital A and D.
They separated in May 2011, with a relationship that spanned approximately 24 years.[5]
[5]The Financial Agreement, recital E and F.
With the assistance of solicitors, the parties ultimately reached agreement with respect to the division of their matrimonial property on separation, the terms of which were somewhat novel in that they meant the parties had an ongoing contractual relationship…

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.

Continue reading HHP v WHP

Details

AGLC: HHP v WHP [2020] QCAT 524
Case: [2020] QCAT 524
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves a dispute between HHP, the applicant, and WHP, the respondent, concerning the recovery of a debt amounting to $4,845.96 plus interest and costs. The applicant claims that the respondent wrongly benefited from solar rebates or credits between June 2013 and January 2020. The respondent occupied a property owned by the applicant rent-free, except for utilities charges, during the relevant period. The applicant argues that the respondent should reimburse him for the solar rebates she benefited from, citing the terms of a Financial Agreement and a Lease between the parties. The respondent contests the applicant's claim, asserting that her agreement with him was to pay for electricity consumption charges over and above the solar credit, and that the applicant's ownership of the rebate in the Financial Agreement was of any credits over and above usage charges. The respondent also contends that the application is time-barred under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld).

The legal issues in this case revolve around jurisdiction, specifically whether the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) has the authority to hear the matter. The applicant's claim appears to be more akin to a residential tenancy dispute rather than a minor debt claim. However, the Financial Agreement and Lease are so intertwined that they cannot stand alone from each other in the context of the current dispute. The Financial Agreement stipulates that "all and any future disputes" under the agreement would be determined by an approved arbitrator under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The Tribunal's jurisdiction does not extend to enforcing terms of a Financial Agreement, as questions of validity, enforceability, or effectiveness of such agreements are to be determined by the Family Court of Australia.

In light of the aforementioned issues, the Tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. Consequently, the application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

No further orders were made by the Tribunal.

Orders