King v Stahlhut
[2011] QCATA 293
•24 October 2011
| 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) Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 32DA Jones v McCoist [2011] QCATA 212 |
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 upon a consideration of the evidence the conclusion is that there is no enforceable contract and the circumstances are truly a de facto relationship[2] where there is a mutual contribution to the acquisition of property and the remedy is one of an adjustment of property rights under the Property Law Act 1974.
[1] [2011] QCATA 212.
[2] Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 32DA.
The proceeding before the learned Adjudicator was not concerned about the division of property rights or pooling of assets for their joint benefit. Here, the contest is whether the agreement as alleged by Ms King was in fact entered into, or whether in fact, as Mr Stahlhut contends, she simply paid a fair and reasonable amount to cover her expenses whilst being accommodated in his house.
As this is an appeal from a decision in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the Tribunal leave to appeal is necessary.[3] The question whether or not leave to appeal should be granted is usually addressed according to established principles: Is there a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision?[4] Is there a reasonable prospect that the applicant will obtain substantive relief?[5] Is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by some error?[6] Is there a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the appellate court or tribunal, would be to the public advantage?[7]
[3] QCAT Act 2009, s 142(3).
[4] QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[5] Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 at 2.
[6] QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.
[7]Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388 at 389; McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577 at 578, 580.
There has been an error of law because there has not been a determination of the issues in the application. The application for leave to appeal must be granted. The application will be referred back to the minor civil disputes jurisdiction for determination.
0
0