Lang v Centa E Pty Ltd
[2012] QCAT 188
•8 May 2012
| CITATION: | Lang v Centa E Pty Ltd [2012] QCAT 188 |
| PARTIES: | Gregory Paul Lang trading as Olive Thyme Deli (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| Centa E Pty Ltd (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | RSL122-11 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Retail shop leases matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Michelle Howard, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 8 May 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application of Centa E Pty Ltd for striking out or dismissal of the notice of dispute is dismissed. 2. Gregory Paul Lang trading as Olive Thyme Deli must file in the Tribunal four (4) copies and give to Centa E Pty Ltd one (1) copy of a document setting out particulars of his claim under three headings as follows: (i) the precise monetary amount claimed, broken down into amounts for the components for which he claims; (ii) the exact terms of the orders which the Tribunal is to be asked to make including details as to how the amount claimed is calculated; (iii) a list of the events which he says give rise to each of the claim/s (but not the evidence by which he intends to prove them) by 4:00 pm on 31 May 2012. 3. Centa E Pty Ltd must file in the Tribunal four (4) copies and give to Gregory Paul Lang trading as Olive Thyme Deli one (1) copy of any response to the application by 4:00pm on 14 June 2012. 4. Gregory Paul Lang trading as Olive Thyme Deli must file in the Tribunal four (4) copies and give to Centa E Pty Ltd one (1) copy of all material upon which he intends to rely by 4:00pm on 5 July 2012. That material must: (a) Contain statements of all witnesses upon whom Gregory Paul Lang trading as Olive Thyme Deli relies; (b) Each witness statement must have attached to it all relevant documents, with an explanation in the statement as to how they are relevant. All attachments must be page numbered and must be referred to in the statements; (c) The material must also set out: i. The amount sought; ii. The basis on which is claimed; and iii. Details as to how the amount claimed is calculated. 5. Centa E Pty Ltd must file in the Tribunal four (4) copies and give to Gregory Paul Lang trading as Olive Thyme Deli one (1) copy of all material upon which it intends to rely by 4:00pm on 26 July 2012. That material must: (a) Contain statements of all witnesses upon whom Centa E Pty Ltd relies; (b) Each witness statement must have attached to it all relevant documents, with an explanation in the statement as to how they are relevant. All attachments must be page numbered and must be referred to in the statements. 6. The application is listed for a directions hearing at Brisbane at 10.30 am on 7 August 2012. 7. The application is listed for a compulsory conference at Brisbane at 1.30pm on 30 August 2012. |
| CATCHWORDS: | RETAIL SHOP LEASE MATTERS – Application to dismiss or strike out Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 47 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Lang has filed a notice of dispute between himself and Centa E Pty Ltd under the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (RSL Act). Mediation failed to resolve the dispute and the mediator then referred the dispute to the tribunal under the RSL Act.
Centa E Pty Ltd has applied for orders dismissing Mr Lang’s application under section 47 of the QCAT Act. Section 47 provides, among other things, for the dismissal or striking out of proceedings which are frivolous, vexatious or misconceived;[1] lacking in substance;[2] or otherwise an abuse of process.[3]
[1] QCAT Act, s 47(1)(a).
[2] QCAT Act, s 47(1)(b).
[3] QCAT Act, s 47(1)(c).
Centa E has previously been successful in having an earlier related application by Mr Lang dismissed.[4] It advances two bases for its application. Firstly, that Mr Lang has not detailed the amount of compensation he seeks and it cannot be ascertained from the documentation filed. Centa E submits that it is prejudiced by this absence and that this information is required in order to ground QCAT’s jurisdiction under section 103(1)(c) of the RSL Act. Under s 103(1)(c), QCAT’s jurisdictional money limit from 1 November 2010 is $750,000.[5] Secondly, Centa E argues that the nature of the claim is illogical and devoid of any meaningful particularity which could bring it within s 43 of the RSL Act. Section 43 provides for circumstances in which compensation is payable by a lessor.
[4] Lang v Centa E Pty Ltd [2011] QCAT 641.
[5]Section 103(1)(c) of the RSL Act provides that the amount claimed must be no more than the monetary limit within the meaning of the District Court Act 1967, s 68. This is currently $750,000.
Mr Lang filed material in accordance with the tribunal’s directions of 21 February 2012 in relation to Centa E’s application for dismissal, although he had also emailed the tribunal and stated that he had not receive a copy of the application and supporting material from Centa E. The material filed is a large bundle of documents containing submissions and other material said to relate to his claim.
Subsequently, at a directions hearing further directions were made by the tribunal on 10 April 2012 for the service by Centa E of its application and supporting material on Mr Lang. He then filed another document specifying that he seeks damages in the amount of $195,000 and various components of damage that he says are included in that total amount. He does not break the total amount down into the individual component amounts that he seeks. He does not respond directly to Centa E’s application to strike out his claim.
Mr Lang acts on his own behalf. With the benefit of Centa E’s submissions about perceived inadequacies in his material, he has provided details of the amount that he claims. He can be directed to provide further details necessary to define his claim.
It does not appear that the claim made by Mr Lang falls within the categories provided for in s 47 of the QCAT Act. It is not frivolous, misconceived, lacking in substance or an abuse of process. The amount of the claim now specified is within the tribunal’s jurisdictional money limit.
Therefore, I consider the appropriate course is to dismiss the application by Centa E; to make further directions which will result in further particularisation by Mr Lang of the claim he makes; and to make directions for the filing of further material by both parties, as well as a compulsory conference.
I make orders accordingly.
0