Lina v Twadle

[2025] QDC 141

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: 

 Lina v Twadle [2025] QDC 141

PARTIES: 

JAYSON LINA  
(Applicant/Appellant)

v

JIM TWADLE  
(Respondent)

FILE NO:

1653/25

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Appeal  

ORIGINATING COURT: 

Magistrates Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 October 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 

3 October 2025 (on the papers) 

JUDGE:

Porter KC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The appeal is allowed.

2.   The orders of the Magistrates Court made 16 May 2025 are dismissed.

3.   The application filed 1 April 2025 is dismissed.

4.   The parties should provide written submissions of not more than 2 pages on costs of the application and the appeal by 4pm on 16 October 2025.

Summary

1. Does the Magistrates Court of Queensland have jurisdiction to determine a claim in negligence for damages for property damage arising out of a car accident which occurred in Victoria involving two Victorian residents where the defendant is served under the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) (SEPA)?

2. Yes.

The proceedings below

1. The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages of $18,519.09, alleging that the defendant negligently caused damage to the plaintiff’s car by colliding with it when the defendant was backing out of the defendant’s driveway.  It is not disputed that the collision occurred on Flemington Crescent in Werribee, a suburb of Melbourne. 

2. The plaintiff sued in the Magistrates Court of Queensland and filed his proceedings in the central (Brisbane) registry of that Court. The defendant filed a Conditional Notice of Intention to Defend. The conditional defence alleged that the collision occurred in Victoria, the defendant resides in Victoria and does not carry on business in Queensland. It alleged that the plaintiff commenced proceedings “in the incorrect Court and/or district” and in breach of Rule 35 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). 

3. Consistent with Rule 144(5)(a) UCPR, the defendant filed an application for an order under Rule 16. That application sought that the plaintiff’s claim be set aside pursuant to Rules 16(a) and 16(e) UCPR or stayed pursuant to Rule 16(g) as the claim was in breach of Rule 35.

4. Before the learned Magistrate, the parties were agreed that the collision happened when and where the statement of claim alleged it did.  It was also uncontentious that the plaintiff and defendant both resided in Victoria at the time of the collision and still do and that neither operated a business in Queensland.

5. The hearing and decision were brief. 

6. After appearances, this exchange occurred:

   MR FITZSIMONS:  …. We’ve exchanged our outlines. This is a jurisdiction question.

   HIS HONOUR:   Where the collision occurred in Victoria, the defendant lives in Victoria – seems fairly straightforward from my view, Mr Randall.

   MR RANDALL: Your Honour, the application today that’s been filed are both rule – are both on a breach of rule 35. That’s the application that we’ve come to respond to today. Now, rule 35 is a part of division 2 of part 6 of chapter 2 of the UCPR. That is about filing in a registry other than…