Lomas v Veescorp Pty Ltd

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

1. 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).

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. On 15 March 2011 Mr Lomas filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal the decision of the Tribunal.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. As a consequence of the proceedings being a nullity and the fact that Mr Lomas has prospects of having…