Lang v Centa E Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2012] QCAT 340
| CITATION: | Lang v Centa E Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] QCAT 340 |
| PARTIES: | Gregory Paul Lang trading as Olive Thyme Deli |
| v | |
| Centa E Pty Ltd |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | RSL122-11 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Retail shop leases matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Sandra G Deane, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 2 August 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application by Centa E Pty Ltd for striking out or dismissal of the notice of dispute is dismissed. 2. Directions 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the Order of 8 May 2012 are cancelled. 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: (a) any response to the application; and (b) all material upon which it intends to rely, by 4pm 24 August 2012 (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. 4. The application is listed for a directions hearing at Brisbane at 9.30am on 6 September 2012. 5. The application is listed for a Compulsory Conference at Brisbane at 1.30pm on 27 September 2012. |
| CATCHWORDS: | RETAIL SHOP LEASE MATTER – application for directions and to dismiss or strike out Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 28, 43, 47-48 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
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 arising out of a lease between himself as tenant and Centa E Pty Ltd as landlord under the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (the Act). Mediation failed to resolve the dispute and the matter was referred to the Tribunal for determination.
Centa E applied to dismiss or strike out the proceedings under section 47 of the QCAT Act. The Tribunal dismissed that application and on 8 May 2012 made further directions for the conduct of the matter including that:
a)Mr Lang file a document setting out the particulars of his claim by 31 May 2012.
b)Centa E file a response to the claim by 14 June 2012.
c)Mr Lang file the material upon which he intends to rely by 5 July 2012.
d)Centa E file the material upon which it intends to rely by 26 July 2012.
Mr Lang filed with the Tribunal a document on 21 May 2012.
On 31 May 2012 Centa E applied for orders that:
a)the directions dated 8 May 2012 be discharged;
b)Mr Lang comply with Direction 1 of the Tribunal’s orders dated 8 May 2012 failing which this proceeding be dismissed/struck out;
c)The Tribunal pronounce fresh directions as this Tribunal so determines.
Centa E relies upon an affidavit of Mr Robert Ross[1] in support of the application.
[1] Sworn 31 May 2012.
Centa E submits that:
a)Mr Lang has failed to provide sufficient particulars to support his alleged claims and to provide any methodology to support the claims.
b)Mr Lang’s claims as to damages are misconceived[2], lacking in substance[3] and otherwise an abuse of process[4].
[2] Section 47(1)(a) QCAT Act.
[3] Section 47(1)(b) QCAT Act.
[4] Section 47(1)(c) QCAT Act.
The application seeks an order to effectively give Mr Lang one last chance to provide ‘sufficient particulars’ otherwise his proceedings should be dismissed. This type of order is sometimes referred to as a ‘guillotine order’.
Mr Lang was directed to file submissions in reply to Centa E’s application for dismissal. Mr Lang filed a document on 20 June 2012.
Mr Lang has filed additional documents on 5 July 2012 pursuant to the directions.
Centa E has not filed a response or any material upon which it intends to rely presumably because it is awaiting the outcome of this application.
Mr Lang acts on his own behalf. Centa E has assistance from legal practitioners.
This Tribunal :
a)is designed so that parties may represent themselves;[5]
b)is not bound by the rules of evidence;[6]
c)must act with as little formality and technicality and with as much speed as the matter permits;[7]
d)does not require parties to set out particulars of their claims in the level of details that is expected in courts in what are known as pleadings.
[5] Section 43(1) QCAT Act.
[6] Section 28(3)(b) QCAT Act.
[7] Section 28(3)(d) QCAT Act.
Centa E’s application is premised on a contention that Mr Lang has not complied with direction 1 of 8 May 2012. Apart from contending a lack of particularity Centa E does not set out the respects in which it contends there has been non-compliance with direction 1.
The manner in which Mr Lang sets out his claim may not be what Centa E would expect from an applicant with legal assistance or in court pleadings but Mr Lang acts on his own behalf and pleadings are not part of this Tribunal’s proceedings.
Having regard to the material filed by Mr Lang in this matter including the material filed by Mr Lang prior to the 8 May 2012 directions and the fact that Mr Lang acts on his own behalf the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Lang has made a genuine attempt to comply with direction 1 dated 8 May 2012.
The Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Lang’s claim fell within the categories provided for in section 47 of the QCAT Act when it considered the matter in May 2012.
Since then on 21 May 2012 and on 20 June 2012 Mr Lang filed additional details of his claim and on 5 July 2012 has filed material upon which he intends to rely. This additional material provides further support for the view that Mr Lang’s claim does not fall within the categories provided for in section 47 of the QCAT Act.
In the circumstances I dismiss that part of the application seeking an order to strike out the proceedings and I make directions for the future conduct of the matter.
0
0
0