King v Stahlhut - [2011] QCATA 293

CITATION:

King v Stahlhut [2011] QCATA 293

PARTIES:	Kristie Jayne King (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Scott Andrew Stahlhut (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL145-11

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Richard Oliver, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON:

24 October 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

Leave to appeal granted.1.

The application is referred back to the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the Tribunal for determination.2.

CATCHWORDS:

Minor Civil Disputes – where applicant claims refund of contributions under an agreement with the respondent – where no determination of issues in the application – whether de facto relationship existed

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, ss 142(3)
Property Law Act 1974, Part 19

Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 32DA

Jones v McCoist [2011] QCATA 212
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 s 32 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 28 July 2010 Ms King filed an application in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the Tribunal claiming $6,889.44 from Mr Stahlhut. The basis of the claim was she and Mr Stahlhut entered into an agreement that she would move into a house owned by him, she would contribute to the expenses relating to the house including mortgage payments and if the relationship did not work out and she moved out within 12 months, he would repay her those contributions.

Mr Stahlhut defended the claim and submits that no such agreement existed. He contended that although Ms King made contributions she had the benefit of those contributions with accommodation and use of the house. He also says that the monies paid by Ms King were fair and reasonable to cover her expenses.

When the matter came on for hearing before a Tribunal Adjudicator, the substantive issues in dispute were not considered by him. The hearing proceeded on the assumption that they were living as a de facto couple and therefore the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to adjust property rights under part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974. By reason of this perceived jurisdictional hurdle, the application was dismissed. Mr Stahlhut did not contend that he and Ms King were in a de facto relationship which ousted the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

In Jones v McCoist[1] the Appeal Tribunal considered, that where parties are living together, there first needs to be a determination of the issues raised in the application before dismissing the application because it has the appearance of a property dispute between de facto partners. The dispute here is whether there was an agreement, supported by consideration, as contended for by Ms King. It may be that…

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 King v Stahlhut

Details

AGLC: King v Stahlhut [2011] QCATA 293
Case: [2011] QCATA 293
Decision Date: 24 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of King v Stahlhut, the applicant, Mr King, sought a refund of contributions made under an agreement with the respondent, Ms Stahlhut, for the purposes of their alleged de facto relationship. The matter was initially heard by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales (NCAT) in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction, but the appeal was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute regarding the refund of the contributions. This involved interpreting the relevant legislative framework, including the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) and the relationship between the minor civil disputes jurisdiction and other jurisdictional divisions within the NCAT. The court also had to determine whether the Tribunal had made any errors in its jurisdictional determination or in its failure to make a determination on the merits of the case.

The court found that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute, as the claim for a refund of contributions under an agreement related to a de facto relationship exceeded the monetary limit for matters heard in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction. The court held that the Tribunal should have dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction and not proceeded to consider the merits of the case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, leave to appeal was granted, and the matter was referred back to the Tribunal for determination within the appropriate jurisdiction.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was granted, and the application was referred back to the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the Tribunal for determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted.1.

The application is referred back to the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the Tribunal for determination.2.

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

Full text does not contain this section.