QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Lucas v Habul [2020] QCATA 53
PARTIES: ASSUNTA LUCAS (appellant)
v
HARRY HABUL (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
APL252-18 (appeal); APL311-18 (cross appeal)
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:
MCDO 357/18 (Southport)
MATTER TYPE:
Appeals
DELIVERED ON:
8 April 2020
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Gordon
ORDERS: 1. The application by Assunta Lucas to amend the grounds of appeal in APL252-18 is granted in the form submitted without the need to serve any further documents.
2. The application by Assunta Lucas to put fresh evidence before the Appeal Tribunal is refused.
3. Leave to appeal in APL252-18 is granted. The decision made on 5 September 2018 in application MCDO 357/18 (Southport) that Assunta Lucas pay to Harry Habul the sum of $4,500 within 90 days is set aside.
4. The following decision is substituted: application MCDO 357/18 (Southport) is dismissed because the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear it.
5. Leave to appeal in APL311-18 is refused. This means that the cross appeal fails.
CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – restrictions on the minor civil dispute jurisdiction of the tribunal – whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with a minor civil dispute on a quantum meruit – whether the claim is a building dispute and if so whether the pre-action QBCC conciliation has taken place – whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with a building dispute as a minor civil dispute if it is a claim to recover a debt or liquidated demand of money – whether the tribunal has general jurisdiction to make a fair order in any claim of up to $25,000
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 11, s 13
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 77(2)
Alexander v Ajax Insurance Co Ltd [1956] VLR 436
Hashfield v Gold Coast City Council [2020] QCATA 36
Lagos v Grunwaldt [1910] 1 KB 41
Lockard Consultants Pty Ltd v AsteRX Pty Ltd t/as Medirecords [2019] QCAT 122
New Image Beauty Salons Pty Ltd v Dewar and Anor [2011] QCATA 217
Skinner v FTP Contracting Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2) [2020] QCATA 12
REPRESENTATION:
Appellant:
Self-represented but assisted by Gold Coast Community Legal Centre
Respondent:
Self-represented
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
REASONS FOR DECISION
This is an appeal by Assunta Lucas in APL252-18, and a cross appeal by Harry Habul in APL311-18, from a decision made by an Adjudicator in a minor civil dispute. The decision was made in application MCDO 357/18 (Southport).
That application was brought by Mr Habul against Ms Lucas. He claimed the sum of $11,593.43 from her plus the filing fee and service costs. He said that she had engaged him as a licensed builder, to carry out renovation work at her…
Continue reading Lucas v Habul
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lucas v Habul [2020] QCATA 53
- Case
- [2020] QCATA 53
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court meticulously examined the jurisdictional constraints imposed on the tribunal, specifically in relation to minor civil disputes. It found that the tribunal's jurisdiction over minor civil disputes was limited and did not extend to claims involving building disputes unless certain pre-action requirements were fulfilled. Furthermore, the court held that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear a minor civil dispute if the claim was to recover a debt or a liquidated demand of money. Consequently, the tribunal's general jurisdiction to make a fair order in claims of up to $25,000 did not override the specific jurisdictional limitations for minor civil disputes.
Given its findings, the court concluded that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter concerning Assunta Lucas and Harry Habul. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was granted, and the earlier decision that ordered Assunta Lucas to pay Harry Habul was set aside. The tribunal's decision was dismissed as it fell outside the jurisdictional scope of the tribunal for minor civil disputes. Conversely, the cross-appeal was dismissed due to the refusal of leave to appeal, thereby rendering it ineffective.
The final orders of the court included granting Assunta Lucas's application to amend the grounds of appeal, refusing her application to present fresh evidence, and granting leave to appeal in the primary matter. The earlier decision requiring Assunta Lucas to pay Harry Habul was set aside, and a new decision was substituted dismissing the application due to the tribunal's lack of jurisdiction. The cross-appeal was dismissed as the leave to appeal was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application by Assunta Lucas to amend the grounds of appeal in APL252-18 is granted in the form submitted without the need to serve any further documents.
2. The application by Assunta Lucas to put fresh evidence before the Appeal Tribunal is refused.
3. Leave to appeal in APL252-18 is granted. The decision made on 5 September 2018 in application MCDO 357/18 (Southport) that Assunta Lucas pay to Harry Habul the sum of $4,500 within 90 days is set aside.
4. The following decision is substituted: application MCDO 357/18 (Southport) is dismissed because the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear it.
5. Leave to appeal in APL311-18 is refused. This means that the cross appeal fails.
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.