Lomas v Veescorp Pty Ltd
[2011] QCAT 141
•5 May 2011
| CITATION: | Lomas v Veescorp Pty Ltd [2011] QCAT 141 |
| PARTIES: | Mr Paul David Lomas |
| v | |
| Veescorp Pty Ltd |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL082-11 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Richard Oliver, Senior Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 5 May 2011 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | Unless otherwise ordered, the decision of 31 January 2011 in claim number 2907/10 is stayed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Application for a stay – request for reasons – exercise of discretion – where respondent company was deregistered prior to the final hearing – whether final orders made a nullity Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009, s 145 Stergiou v Citibank Savings Ltd (2005) ACTCA 15 |
REASONS FOR DECISION
On 16 August 2010 Veescorp Pty Ltd filed an application for a Minor Civil Dispute in the Tribunal claiming $25,200.00 damages against Mr Lomas for “compensation for loss of sales and profits relating to the website not being provided on an ongoing basis”.[1] The primary application contended that Veescorp Pty Ltd engaged Mr Lomas to construct a website for it and that Veescorp had recently found that the website was not online and as a consequence, Veescorp suffered loss and damage. It was clear from the primary application that Veescorp contends that there was a contract between Veescorp and Mr Lomas and Veescorp was the legal entity claiming compensation.
[1] Application for Minor Civil Dispute section C(2).
At the commencement of the minor civil dispute hearing the learned Tribunal Member asked who was representing Veescorp and Mr Armstrong replied that he was.
After hearing the parties and considering the evidence, the Tribunal ordered that Mr Lomas pay to the applicant, Veescorp, the sum of $9,330.00.
On 15 March 2011 Mr Lomas filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal the decision of the Tribunal.
In addition to filing the application for leave to appeal or appeal, Mr Lomas also filed an application to stay a decision that is, the decision of the Tribunal ordering him to pay to Veescorp the judgement amount. The first ground of appeal, and a ground relied on in the application for the stay, is that Veescorp Pty Ltd was deregistered on 14 November 2010. A company name search on the Australian Securities and Investment Commission website confirms that Veescorp Pty Ltd ACN 109 669 481 was in fact deregistered on 14 November 2010. Although there is a slight difference in the description on the company search in that Veescorp is recorded as “Vees Corp” the Australian Company Number is the same, 109 669 481, as is in the minor civil dispute application.
The effect of deregistration is that Veescorp was no longer a legal entity and therefore had no standing to continue the proceedings it had commenced against Mr Lomas. Any orders made in proceedings after deregistration would, prima facie, be a nullity[2].
[2] Stergiou v Citibank Savings Ltd (2005) ACTCA 15.
As a consequence of the proceedings being a nullity and the fact that Mr Lomas has prospects of having the proceeding, and the orders, set aside, the exercise of discretion warrants a stay of the operation of the decision until the final appeal is decided pursuant to section 145(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.
I should also say, even without the application for a stay being filed by Mr Lomas, once it came to the Tribunal’s attention that Veescorp was deregistered, it is probable the Tribunal would have ordered the stay on its own initiative[3] given that Veescorp is no longer a legal entity.
[3] QCAT Act, s 145(3).
Mr Armstrong, as the purported representative for Veescorp has asked that the Tribunal give reasons for its decision to grant the stay. In circumstances where Veescorp is deregistered, Mr Armstrong has no standing to make any such request or demands on the Tribunal as he has seen fit to do in recent emails. However, to clarify matters it was considered that it was in the best interest of the parties that reasons be given so that Mr Armstrong has a full appreciation of the current legal position of Veescorp in this appeal. This now creates a situation that should Mr Lomas make an application that the appeal be allowed and the orders of 31 January 2011 be set aside, it is difficult to see how such an application could be resisted.
0
0