Hutcheson v Body Corporate for Chateau Bohemia CTS 17563
[2025] QCAT 21
•14 January 2025
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Hutcheson v Body Corporate for Chateau Bohemia CTS 17563 [2025] QCAT 21
PARTIES:
WILLIAM JAMES HUTCHESON (applicant)
v
BODY CORPORATE FOR CHATEAU BOHEMIA CTS 17563 (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
OCL082-24
MATTER TYPE:
Other civil dispute matters
DELIVERED ON:
14 January 2025
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Deane
ORDERS:
The Application to resolve a complex dispute (excluding lot entitlement disputes) filed 22 October 2024 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:
STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – JURISDICTION – GENERALLY – whether application is a complex dispute as defined by the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction – whether misconceived and ought to be dismissed – whether costs order should be made
Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), s 47AA, s 47B, s 48, s 133, s 149A, s 149B, s 178, s 229, s 229A, s 385, s 387, s 405, s 412, Schedule 6
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), 47, s 100, s 102
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
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
Mr Hutcheson filed an Application to resolve a complex dispute (excluding lot entitlement disputes) on 22 October 2024 (the Application) seeking orders against the Body Corporate for Chateau Bohemia CTS 17563 (Body Corporate) for ‘reimbursement of an involuntary paid invoice of $4,853.75, Other Levy Charge’.
The Tribunal directed Mr Hutcheson and the Body Corporate to file and serve submissions, including as to the basis of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and whether the Application should be dismissed or struck out for lack of jurisdiction and for these issues to be determined on the papers after 23 December 2024.[1]
[1]Directions made 4 November 2024.
Mr Hutcheson sent an email to the Tribunal on 8 November 2024, which on its face does not appear to have also been sent to the Body Corporate. He says that he had been informed that the Commissioner’s office could not consider his application because he is no longer an owner and he was led to believe that the Tribunal had jurisdiction. No submissions were received from the Body Corporate. I proceed to determine the issue of jurisdiction.
Is this proceeding about a complex dispute?
I find that the Application is not about a complex dispute.
Schedule 6 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (the Act) provides:
complex dispute means—
(a) a matter for which an application mentioned in section 47AA(3)(a), 47B(3)(a), 48(1)(a), 385(8)(a), 387(6)(a), 405(2)(a) or 412(2)(a) is, or may be, made; or
(b) a dispute mentioned in section 133, 149A, 149B or 178.
The Act confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to resolve a complex dispute.[2]
[2]The Act, s 229(2).
On the limited information before me I am not satisfied that the dispute falls within any of the following:
(a)section 149B, which relates to disputes about a claimed or anticipated contractual matter about the engagement of a person as a body corporate manager, caretaking service contractor or letting agent. The dispute appears to be between Mr Hutcheson, a now former lot owner, and the Body Corporate.
(b)section 47AA, section 47B, section 385, section 387, section 405 or section 412, which all relate to a dispute about contribution schedule lot entitlements.
(c)section 48, which relates to a dispute about an interest schedule.
(d)section 133, which relates to disputes arising out of a review of terms of service contracts.
(e)section 149A, which relates to disputes about the transfer of a letting agent’s management rights.
(f)section 178, which relates to disputes about an exclusive use by-law where the owner of the lot to which the exclusive use by-law attaches stops being a body corporate manager, service contractor or letting agent for the scheme and the application is brought by the body corporate.
Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine this dispute?
I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this dispute.
The Tribunal is a court of limited jurisdiction and must find power to hear and determine the Application either in the QCAT Act or the Act.
The Application was commenced as a complex dispute. For the reasons set out above, this is not a complex dispute. Mr Hutcheson has not provided any submissions as to any alternative basis for jurisdiction.
Section 229A of the Act does not apply as it relates to actions by a body corporate to recover debts from a lot owner.
I find that the proceeding is misconceived as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear it.
Section 47 of the QCAT Act provides that where a proceeding is misconceived it may be dismissed or struck out. Where the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction, it has no power to make orders sought.
Costs
I find that there should be no order as to costs.
If the Tribunal considers a proceeding is misconceived the Tribunal has a discretion to make a costs order against the party who brought the proceeding to compensate another party for any reasonable costs, expenses, loss, inconvenience and embarrassment resulting from the proceeding.[3]
[3]QCAT Act, s 47(2)(c).
Unless the QCAT Act or an enabling Act otherwise provides, the starting position is that each party is to bear their own costs.[4] The QCAT Act does provide for the awarding of costs where it is in the interests of justice to do so.[5]
[4]Ibid, s 100.
[5]Ibid, s 102.
In addition to section 47, I consider the factors referred to in section 102(3) of the QCAT Act, to the extent they are relevant, to determine if the interests of justice point to a costs award.[6] Those considerations are largely in the nature of what may be regarded as ‘entitling’ or ‘disentitling’ factors.
[6]This is not a review of a reviewable decision and therefore section 102(3)(d) of the QCAT Act is not relevant.
The Body Corporate did not file any submissions in this matter and did not seek a costs order. The jurisdictional issue was raised at an early time in the proceeding. I am not satisfied that I should exercise my discretion to make a costs order.
0
0
2