Jindal v Michael Kenneth Eagles (no 2) - [2023] QCAT 229

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Jindal & Anor v Michael Kenneth Eagles & Ors (no 2) [2023] QCAT 229

PARTIES:

AMIT JINDAL
(FIRST APPLICANT)
AND
JYOTI BHATIA

(second applicants)

v

MICHAEL KENNETH EAGLES
(FIRST RESPONDENT)
AND
PAUL EAGLES
(SECOND RESPONDENT)
AND
PRE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
(THIRD RESPONDENT)
AND
JENNY EAGLES

(fourth respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL242-21

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

24 May 2023

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Brown

ORDERS:

1.       The part of the proceeding against Pre Investments Pty Ltd, Jenny Eagles and Paul Andrew Eagles is dismissed.

2.       Pre Investments Pty Ltd, Jenny Eagles and Paul Andrew Eagles are removed as respondents.

3.       Amit Jindal and Jyoti Bhatia must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and give to Michael Kenneth Eagles one (1) copy of an amended application for domestic building disputes which reflects the removal of Pre Investments Pty Ltd, Jenny Eagles and Paul Andrew Eagles as respondents and sets out the claim by Amit Jindal and Jyoti Bhatia against Michael Kenneth Eagles, by: 4:00pm on 7 June 2023.

4.       Michael Kenneth Eagles must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and give to Amit Jindal and Jyoti Bhatia one (1) copy of an amended response (if any), by: 4:00pm on 21 June 2023.

5. Amit Jindal and Jyoti Bhatia must pay Pre Investments Pty Ltd’s, Jenny Eagles’ and Paul Andrew Eagles’ costs of the proceeding to be agreed or failing agreement to be assessed on the standard basis on the Magistrates Court Scale in accordance with Schedule 2, Part 3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) as if the proceeding had been brought in the Magistrates Court.

6.       The matter is listed for a Directions Hearing in Brisbane on a date and time to be advised.

7.       The parties must attend the Directions Hearing by remote conferencing.

CATCHWORDS:

COURTS AND JUDGES – COURTS – JURISDICTIONS AND POWERS – TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS TO OR FROM HIGHER COURT AND BETWEEN COURTS – OTHER MATTERS – where the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide the claims by the applicants against the second, third and fourth respondents – where the originating application filed by the applicants does not articulate a comprehensible and cohesive claim against the respondents – whether the application is in a form sufficiently consistent with a pleadings jurisdiction – whether the tribunal should order the transfer of the proceedings to the Magistrates Court

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where the proceedings against the second, third and fourth respondents were dismissed – whether it is in the interests of justice to make an order for costs

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 47(1), s 52(2), s 100, s 102(1), s 102(3)

Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658

M & J Gray Investments Pty Ltd v AMP Pacific Fair Pty Ltd & Ors [2010] QCAT 454

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined…

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 Jindal v Michael Kenneth Eagles (no 2)

Details

AGLC: Jindal v Michael Kenneth Eagles (no 2) [2023] QCAT 229
Case: [2023] QCAT 229
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jindal v Michael Kenneth Eagles (no 2), the applicants sought to have certain claims against the second, third, and fourth respondents dismissed or transferred to another court. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was tasked with deciding whether to remove these respondents as parties, dismiss the claims against them, and direct the applicants to pay costs on an indemnity basis. Additionally, the applicants requested that directions be made to progress the claim against the first respondent to hearing.

The primary legal issue was whether QCAT had jurisdiction to hear the claims against the second, third, and fourth respondents. Under Section 52(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, if QCAT did not have jurisdiction over certain matters in a proceeding, it could transfer those matters to a court of competent jurisdiction. The QCAT considered whether the claims against the second, third, and fourth respondents were sufficiently clear and coherent to be transferred to the Magistrates Court, which operates under a pleadings jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that the applicants' claims were not presented in a manner appropriate for the Magistrates Court, as they lacked the necessary clarity and coherence required by a pleadings jurisdiction. The Tribunal concluded that transferring the proceeding would not be appropriate due to the significant difficulties in re-pleading the claims.

The QCAT found that the claims against the second, third, and fourth respondents should be dismissed as the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear them. The Tribunal did not order the transfer of the proceedings to the Magistrates Court, as the claims were not presented in a form harmonious with the Magistrates Court's requirements. The Tribunal noted that if the proceedings were transferred, the applicants would need to re-plead their claims in a way that was appropriate for a pleadings jurisdiction, which would be problematic. The Tribunal also referred to previous case law that highlighted the difficulties associated with transferring proceedings from QCAT to a court. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the claims against the second, third, and fourth respondents and ordered directions to progress the claim against the first respondent to hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

The respondents said:(a)The second, third and fourth respondents should be removed as parties;(b)The claim by the applicants against the second, third and fourth respondents should be dismissed;(c)The applicants pay the second, third and fourth respondents costs on the indemnity basis;(d)Directions be made to progress the claim against the first respondent to hearing. Consideration Section 52(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) provides as follows:(2) If the tribunal considers it does not have jurisdiction to hear all matters in a proceeding, the tribunal may, by order, transfer the matter or matters for which it does not have jurisdiction to—(a) a court of competent jurisdiction; or(b)another tribunal or entity having jurisdiction to deal with the matter or matters. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide the claims by the applicants against the second, third and fourth respondents. For the reasons that follow I decline to order the transfer of the proceedings to the Magistrates Court. Firstly, the claims by the applicants against the second, third and fourth respondents are not presented in a form harmonious with proceedings in the Magistrates Court. The Magistrates Court is a pleadings jurisdiction. Pleadings and particulars provide a statement of the case sufficiently clear to allow the other party a fair opportunity to meet it and they define the issues for decision in the proceeding enabling the relevance and admissibility of evidence to be determined at the trial.[2] In the Tribunal, it is the statements of evidence of the parties that serve to identify the issues in dispute to be determined. The originating application filed by the applicants does not articulate a comprehensible and cohesive claim against the respondents. While the subsequent submissions filed by the applicants in response to the respondents’ dismissal application go some way to clarifying the claims made, this highlights the difficulties I have identified when considering the transfer of a proceeding from this Tribunal to a pleadings jurisdiction. If the proceeding against the second, third and fourth respondents is transferred to the Magistrates Court the applicants will be required to re-plead their claim in an appropriate way sufficient to identify the cause or causes of action against the respondents and setting out the material facts relied upon by the applicant for the relief sought and identifying the relief itself. The difficulties associated with the transfer of a proceeding from the Tribunal to a court were highlighted by (then) QCAT President Alan Wilson in M & J Gray Investments Pty Ltd v AMP Pacific Fair Pty Ltd & Ors:[3] [13] Section 52 of the QCAT Act provides that if the Tribunal considers it does not have jurisdiction to hear all matters in a proceeding it may transfer all or parts of it to a court of competent jurisdiction. An order may also be made if QCAT considers the subject matter of the proceeding may more appropriately be dealt with by a court or other entity. In their submissions, the lawyers for the lessors suggest the transfer of all of M & J’s proceedings to the Supreme Court. Although M & J’s lawyers filed submissions in response they did not address that submission.[14] Under s 52 QCAT may, if inclined to order a transfer, also give directions to “...facilitate the transfer, including an order under an Act or other law for starting a proceeding before the relevant entity”. Procedural difficulties will arise here if M & J’s application to QCAT is transferred to the Supreme Court. Despite substantial verbiage and attachments, it is not in a form which would constitute an adequate pleading. Because it was filed before the lessors’ action was commenced in the Supreme Court, it is also unresponsive and on any view M & J, or both parties, would be required to re-plead if the QCAT application was simply transferred to the Court.[15] It is not, then, a matter in which a transfer to the Court can be readily or comfortably facilitated. It is not impossible that, had M & J’s legal representatives turned their minds to the matter, appropriate directions may have been fashioned but, in the absence of any attempt to do that, the better course is to simply dismiss the QCAT proceeding and allow M & J to seek its relief in the present Supreme Court action (or elsewhere if it chooses).[2]Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658, 664.[3][2010] QCAT 454.