Jones v McCoist

[2011] QCATA 212

CITATION: Jones v McCoist [2011] QCATA 212

PARTIES:	Mr Tony Robert Jones (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Ms Julie Ann McCoist (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL057-11

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Richard Oliver, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 16 August 2011

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

Leave to appeal is granted.[1]  

The appeal is allowed.[2]  

The proceeding is remitted to the minor civil disputes jurisdiction to be reheard by another adjudicator / member.[3]  

CATCHWORDS:

Minor Civil Dispute – whether monies advance constituted a loan or pooling of resources in a de facto relationship – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the application

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 142(3)
Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 32DA

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41
Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388

McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers, pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 8 June 2010 Ms McCoist filed an application for a minor civil dispute – minor debt in the Tribunal claiming $15,800 from the applicant, Mr Jones.  The basis of the claim is in respect of an oral loan agreement Ms McCoist says she made with Mr Jones in June 2009 when she lent to him a total of $17,100.00.  She contends that Mr Jones agreed to repay the loan in instalments of $100.00 per week and in addition he would pay instalments off her car loan[1].

   [1]            Application filed 8 June 2010 Part C.

1. Mr Jones, although accepting that he did receive the payment of $17,100.00 into his bank account, says that this was a gift.  He also contends that he and Ms McCoist were in a de facto relationship, having commenced the relationship in December 2008.[2]  What is not in contention is that of the money deposited into Mr Jones’s account, $13,839.52, was utilised to pay his debts.  Although he says that he could have managed to repay his debts by mid 2010, he certainly received a benefit from the financial assistance offered by Ms McCoist.[3]

   [2]        Response filed 17 August 2010.

   [3]        Affidavit filed with the Response paragraph 6.

1. Therefore the issue for determination by the Tribunal on the application was whether the parties had entered into the loan agreement as alleged by the applicant or whether the advance was merely a gift.

1. The application was listed for hearing on 4 November 2010.  At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal ordered that Mr Jones pay to Ms McCoist the sum of $10,000.00.  The rationale for this order is a little confusing.  It is unclear whether a finding was made that the money was given in contemplation of a long term relationship, or whether it was a loan…