Kartadinata v Siraj

Case [2025] QCATA 105

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Kartadinata v Siraj [2025] QCATA 105

PARTIES:
ANTHONY KARTADINATA T/AS OXLEY CAR REPAIRS AND SERVICE CENTRE

(applicant)

v
ABDULHAMID OSMAN MOHAMMED SIRAJ

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL405-23

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:


Q1892-23

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

11 November 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the Papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Munasinghe

ORDERS:

1.     The applicant has leave to appeal.

2.     The appeal is allowed.

3.     The Tribunal’s decision in Q1892-23 is set aside.

4.     The parties are at liberty to apply to the Tribunal for further orders if the applicant has complied with the Tribunal’s decision in Q1892-23.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where Tribunal below found in favour of the respondent after it concluded that a bailment arose between the parties – whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear bailment claims in the absence of a contractual relationship between the parties – where the Tribunal below granted the respondent legal representation but denied the applicant legal representation – whether said denial of legal representation amounted to a denial of natural justice.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 12

Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147

Appleby v Johnson [1874] LR 9 CP 158
Booker Industries Pty Ltd v Wilson Parking (Qld) Pty Ltd [1982] 149 CLR 600

Clements v Independent Indigenous Advisory Committee [2003] 37 AAR 309; [2003] FCAFC 143

Costigan v Marshall [2010] QCA 344

Crown Melbourne Ltd v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd [2016] 333 ALR 384

Escobar v Spindaleri (1986) 7 NSWLR 51
Haoucher v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1990) 169 CLR 648
Hempel v Robinson [1924] SASR 288
Italiano v Carbone & Ors [2005] NSWCA 177
Jones v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388
Lewenberg & White v Legal Aid (Vic) (2005) 22 VAR 354; [2005] VSC 28
Malupo v Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing (2002) 170 FLR 111

Nguyen v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1265; 101 FCR 20

Ogunmefun v Nigeria Airways Ltd [1979] 7-9 CCHCJ 186
Parastatidis v Kontaridis [1978] VR 499

Penfold v Firkan & Balvius [2023] QCATA 11

Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40

Smith v Ash [2010] QCA 112

South Australia v O’Shea [1987] 163 CLR 378

Toyota Motor Corp Australia Ltd v Ken Morgan Motors Pty Ltd [1994] 2 VR 106

Turner v Merrylees [1892] 8 T.L.R.

Younan v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCA 1

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

Applicant:

W Morgan, Morgan Mac Lawyers

Respondent:

M Dzienis, HUB Community Legal

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. This appeal raises an important question about the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, namely whether it can hear and decide bailment claims in the absence of a contractual relationship between the parties. Curiously, that question was not raised by the parties in the Tribunal below.  Nor has it been proffered as a ground of appeal. Nevertheless, it…

Continue reading Kartadinata v Siraj

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kartadinata v Siraj [2025] QCATA 105
Case
[2025] QCATA 105
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kartadinata v Siraj involved the applicant, Kartadinata, appealing a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), which had ruled in favour of the respondent, Siraj, in a dispute concerning a bailment. The appeal raised two main issues: firstly, whether QCAT had the jurisdiction to hear claims of bailment in the absence of a contractual relationship between the parties, and secondly, whether the denial of legal representation to the applicant by the Tribunal amounted to a breach of natural justice. The appeal tribunal found that QCAT lacked jurisdiction to hear the bailment claim as it did not fit within the definition of a minor civil dispute as provided under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). The tribunal also determined that the denial of legal representation to the applicant during the proceedings constituted a breach of natural justice. Consequently, the tribunal granted the applicant leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the decision of QCAT. The tribunal emphasised that there was no utility in remitting the decision back to QCAT due to the jurisdictional issue identified.

The appeal tribunal addressed the issue of jurisdiction by examining the definition of a minor civil dispute under the QCAT Act, which is triggered by a claim arising out of a contract between a consumer and a trader. The tribunal concluded that since the parties had not entered into a legally binding contract, the claim did not fall within the jurisdictional scope of QCAT. Furthermore, the tribunal examined the issue of natural justice, focusing on the denial of legal representation to the applicant. The tribunal found that this denial prejudiced the applicant's ability to adequately present his case, thus breaching the principles of natural justice. These findings led the tribunal to allow the appeal and set aside the decision of QCAT.

The tribunal's reasoning and findings led to a clear outcome: the applicant's appeal was successful, and the decision of QCAT was set aside. The tribunal granted the applicant leave to appeal, found in his favour, and nullified the QCAT decision. The tribunal also noted that the parties could apply to QCAT for further orders if the applicant complied with the original decision. This decision highlights the importance of jurisdictional boundaries and adherence to natural justice principles in tribunal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant has leave to appeal.

2. The appeal is allowed.

3. The Tribunal’s decision in Q1892-23 is set aside.

4. The parties are at liberty to apply to the Tribunal for further orders if the applicant has complied with the Tribunal’s decision in Q1892-23.

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

There is no substance to the applicant’s claim that the learned adjudicator did not consider the Floodwise Report. The respondent filed the report in in the Tribunal registry on 25 October 2023.[25] The report was brought to the learned adjudicator’s attention during the hearing,[26] and it did not cause her to change her decision. [25]QCase Document 13, p 9-12.[26]Transcript of proceedings, p 28, Line 10. Conclusion There is no doubt that a bailment can arise in the absence of a contract.[27] The respondent may well have an arguable cause in an alternative jurisdiction, but not in the Tribunal. I propose to grant the applicant leave to appeal, allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the Tribunal below. There is no utility in remitting the decision back to the Tribunal below given my findings about the absence of jurisdiction. [27]Parastatidis v Kontaridis [1978] VR 499 at 454-45 per Harris J; Ogunmefun v Nigeria Airways Ltd [1979] 7-9 CCHCJ 186 at 136.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The applicant submits the report is relevant to deciding the questions of reasonable foreseeability and whether the applicant took reasonable care. Appeal Tribunal’s consideration This is an appeal from a minor civil dispute proceeding. Therefore, the applicant is required to obtain the Tribunal’s leave to appeal.[2] Leave may be granted where: (a)there is an important point of law or question of general public importance.[3](b)where an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant and there is a reasonable argument that there is an error to be corrected.[4][2]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142(3)(a)(i). [3]Younan v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCA 1.[4]Smith v Ash [2010] QCA 112, [50]; Costigan v Marshall [2010] QCA 344. For reasons that I will elaborate on below, I have resolved that Appeal Tribunal ought to grant the applicant leave to appeal to correct the following legal errors:(a)the Tribunal below lacked jurisdiction to decide a bailment claim because the parties had not entered a legally binding contract. (b)at the hearing, the Tribunal below denied the applicant natural justice by failing to offer him an adjournment to engage legal representatives.Jurisdiction Neither the parties nor the Tribunal below considered the question of jurisdiction at first instance, nor did they raise it on appeal. Nevertheless, “there is a fundamental obligation on any court or tribunal to satisfy itself as to jurisdiction when being asked to quell controversies that come before it”.[5][5]Penfold v Firkin & Balvius [2023] QCATA 11. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear minor civil disputes is enlivened by s 12(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’). It relevantly provides that the Tribunal may exercise its jurisdiction for a minor civil dispute if a relevant person has under the QCAT Act, applied to the tribunal to deal with the dispute. Relevantly, a ‘relevant person’ means “for a claim arising out of a contract between a consumer and trader – the consumer”.[6][6]QCAT Act, s 12(4)(b). A ‘consumer’, for services, means an individual for whom services are supplied for fee or reward (my emphasis) other than – (a)in a trade or business carried on by the individual; or (b)as a member of a business partnership. Schedule 3 of the QCAT Act defines the ‘term minor civil dispute’ as follows: minor civil dispute—1 Minor civil dispute means—(a) a claim to recover a debt or liquidated demand of money of up to the prescribed amount; or(b) a claim arising out of a contract between a consumer and trader, or a contract between 2 or more traders, that is—(i)for payment of money of a value not more than the prescribed amount; or(ii)for relief from payment of money of a value not more than the prescribed amount; or(iii)for performance of work of a value not more than the prescribed amount to rectify a defect in goods supplied or services provided; or(iv)for return of goods of a value not more than the prescribed amount; or(v)for a combination of any 2 or more claims mentioned in subparagraphs (i) to (iv) where the total value of the combined claim is not more than the prescribed amount; or(c) a claim for an amount of not more than the prescribed amount for damage to property caused by, or arising out of the use of, a vehicle; or(d) a tenancy matter; or(e) a claim that is the subject of a dispute under the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011, chapter 2 and is for an amount not more than the prescribed amount; or(f) a matter in relation to which a person may, under the Building Act 1975, chapter 8, part 2A apply to the tribunal for an order.