Lim v New College Queensland Pty Ltd - [2013] QCAT 605

CITATION:

Lim v New College Queensland Pty Ltd & Ors [2013] QCAT 605

PARTIES:	Mrs Minhee Lim (Applicant)
v
New College Queensland Pty Ltd (First Respondent) Jae Hyung Park (Second Respondent) Kate Park (Third Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDO583/13

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

16 September 2013

HEARD AT:

Southport

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Trueman

DELIVERED ON:

16 September 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

ORDERS MADE:

1. THAT the Respondents Application for miscellaneous matter filed 29 August 2013 to strike out the claim is granted.
2. THAT the claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION FOR DISMISSAL- where respondents claim tribunal does not have jurisdiction – where applicant is not a relevant person to bring claim - whether proceeding should be struck out

Queensland Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2009

Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41;
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1949] HCA 1
Green v Tri-Barfen Pty Ltd [2006] QDC 160
Spencer v Commonwealth [2010] HCA 28
Ziegeler t/as Ziegco Pty Ltd v Recochem Incorporated [2010] QCATA 78

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

The respondents make application under section 47 of the QCAT Act for the dismissal of the claim on the basis that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter and that Ms Lim if not a “relevant person” as the QCAT act applies to bring a claim in the tribunal
The application was served on Ms Lim. She was provided with fourteen days to provide written submissions in response. Ms Lim provided written submissions in response to the strike out application. I am satisfied that I can determine the application based on the written submissions of the parties.
Section 47 of the QCAT Act for Dismissing, striking out or deciding if unjustified proceeding or part, the section states:
(1) This section applies if the tribunal considers a proceeding or a part of a proceeding is—
(a) frivolous, vexatious or misconceived; or
(b) lacking in substance; or
(c) otherwise an abuse of process.
(2) The tribunal may—
(a) if the party who brought the proceeding or part before the tribunal is the applicant for the proceeding, order the proceeding or part be dismissed or struck out; or
(b) for a part of a proceeding brought before the tribunal by a party other than the applicant for the proceeding—
(i) make its final decision in the proceeding in the applicant's favour; or
(ii) order that the party who brought the part before the tribunal be removed from the proceeding; or
(c) make a costs order against the party who brought the proceeding or part before the tribunal to compensate another party for any reasonable costs, expenses, loss, inconvenience and embarrassment resulting from the proceeding or part.
When considering a strike out application, the evidence should be weighed in order to reach a conclusion about…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lim v New College Queensland Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] QCAT 605
Decision Date: 16 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lim brought a claim against New College Queensland Pty Ltd in relation to the termination of his employment. The college argued that the Fair Work Commission did not have jurisdiction over the matter, and further, that Mr. Lim was not a relevant person to bring the claim. The college filed an application to have the claim dismissed, arguing it should be struck out as it was outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

The court was required to determine whether the tribunal had the jurisdiction to hear Mr. Lim's claim and if he was a relevant person under the Fair Work Act. The court examined the definition of a relevant person and the scope of the tribunal's jurisdiction. The college's argument centred on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act, and whether Mr. Lim satisfied the criteria to be considered a relevant person.

The court found that the definition of a relevant person under the Fair Work Act did not include Mr. Lim, as he had not met the necessary criteria. Furthermore, the court concluded that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the matter, as the dispute did not fall within the scope of employment disputes the tribunal was empowered to hear. As a result, the court granted the college's application to strike out the claim, holding that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction and Mr. Lim was not a relevant person to bring the claim.

The orders made by the court were that the college's application to strike out the claim was granted, and the claim was struck out for want of jurisdiction. The decision emphasised the importance of meeting the criteria to be considered a relevant person and the need for disputes to fall within the jurisdictional scope of the tribunal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. THAT the Respondents Application for miscellaneous matter filed 29 August 2013 to strike out the claim is granted.

2. THAT the claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

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.