House of Security P/L v Vita Group P/L t/a Fone Zone

[2010] QCAT 217

CITATION: House of Security P/L v Vita Group P/L t/a Fone Zone [2010] QCAT 217

PARTIES:	House of Security Pty Ltd trading as House of Security
V
Vita Group Pty Ltd  trading as Fone Zone

APPLICATION NUMBER:   174/10           

MATTER TYPE: Other minor civil disputes matters

HEARING DATE:     27/4 /10

HEARD AT:  Southport

DECISION OF: Christine Truman, Adjudicator

DELIVERED ON: 27/4/10

DELIVERED AT:      Southport

ORDERS MADE: That this application be transferred to the Magistrates Court at Southport

CATCHWORDS :  Jurisdiction, s52 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, claims in excess of jurisdictional limit.

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Mr Graham Cowan
RESPONDENT:	Mr Chris Williams & Mr Mark Anning

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This matter commenced as 16 separate claims, being claims 70113/09, 70112/09, 70111/09, 70114/09, 70109/09, 70107/09, 70108/09, 70106/09, 79/09, 78/09, 77/09, 76/09 81/09, 80/09 and  82/09 filed by the Applicant in relation to breach of contract.   The claims related to the same parties and issues in dispute. It was determined that it would not be practicable nor efficient use of court time to have the matters heard separately.   On the 12^th March 2009 an order was made to consolidate all claims and an order for all matters to be heard together on a date to be advised to the parties.   At this hearing the Applicant indicated there were other claims he intended on filing against the Respondent for similar matters.
2. On the 12^th March 2009 the Applicant was ordered to make, file and serve any further claims against the respondent within 14 days.  The respondents were also ordered to file any defence to the further claims within 7 days of being served with a copy of the further claim.  The further claim by the Applicant was stated to have arisen from costs arsing from the cancellation of further contracts between the parties. The consolidated matters were then to be consolidated with the new claims sought to be filed which is listed as claim 979/10.  All matters were to be listed for hearing together on a date to be advised to the parties. All claims were to be heard together as they relate to the same set of circumstances in that the Respondent is alleged to have cancelled contracts for the supply of security monitoring services to various Fone Zone shop locations around Australia.
3. The parties appeared before this Tribunal on the 27^th April 2010 for the matter to be heard. The Applicant provided evidence in a written summary that the cancellation of all contracts by the Respondent with the Applicant now amounted to a claim of $37,616.43. (marked as ‘exhibit 2’). That exceeds the jurisdictional limit allowed in this Tribunal. The Applicant gave evidence that he was pursuing the entirety of his claim for the full amount. The Applicant sought to have the matter adjourned to the Magistrates Court so that the claim could be listed for hearing. The Respondent provided consent to having the matter referred to the Magistrates Court. The Respondents file a defence, which was placed on the prior consolidated files and not file 979/10. A further Defence was provided at the hearing and placed on claim 979/10. (Being marked as ‘exhibit 1’)
4. The Respondents defence, is that a contract does not exist between the Applicant and the Respondent and further that if a contract does exist that the Respondent is not indebted to the Applicant for contract cancellations costs due to a poor level of service in monitoring various sites resulting in various sites being broken into and loss arising from the break in of more than $110,000.  The Respondents Defence claims that as a result of a failure by the Applicant to provide the services pursuant to the contract the Applicant has breached the Service Agreement and caused the Respondent to have suffered loss.  
5. The issues in dispute have not been resolved by mediation and the issue is a question of law and the determination of firstly whether a contract exists between the parties and if so, what amount of costs pursuant to the contract is owed, if any,  by the Respondent for cancelling such contract.
6. As the total of the combined claim now exceeds the jurisdictional limit of this Tribunal the matter should be transferred or dismissed. Pursuant to 52 (2)(a) this Tribunal must transfer the proceeding, subject to an order, to a court of competent jurisdictions. The amount of claim being more than $25,000 specifies that the Magistrates Court is the court of competent jurisdiction to hear the matter.
7. The case for the Applicant has merit and the case involves the law of contracts. In the interest of natural justice and procedural fairness the matter should be transferred to the Magistrates Court for hearing. The matter must be transferred by a judicial member pursuant to s.52(7) of the QCAT Act.

In the circumstances this is a matter that  this  Tribunal considers it does not have jurisdiction to hear all matters in these proceeding, and the Tribunal may, by order, transfer the matters for which it does not have jurisdiction to a court of competent jurisdiction and that court of competent jurisdiction is the Magistrates Court located at Southport, in Queensland.  It is therefore proposed to make an Order accordingly.