McIntyre v Rickuss

[2014] QCAT 636

CITATION: McIntyre v Rickuss [2014] QCAT 636

PARTIES:	Peter Gregory Ross McIntyre (Applicant)
v
Kacey Leigh Rickuss (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: MCDO168/14

MATTER TYPE: Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Pine Rivers

DECISION OF: Adjudicator Bertelsen

DELIVERED ON: 18 November 2014

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.    The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

CATCHWORDS:

Trader dispute – existence of contract – action in detinue not contemplated – remedies available not determinative of jurisdiction – limited QCAT minor civil dispute jurisdiction

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 12

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The applicant has filed an application for miscellaneous matters seeking return of personal property. The Tribunal’s minor civil dispute jurisdiction is limited as set out in s 12 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act). The forms of action available to be commenced as a minor civil dispute have been strictly interpreted.

2. A minor civil dispute includes a claim arising out of a contract between a consumer and a trader and a claim arising out of a contract between two or more traders. Clearly here the applicant is not a consumer nor does he assert himself to be.

3. Is the applicant a trader? In short no. Here the applicant was an employee of the respondent. An alternative commercial relationship is suggested. What exactly that involved is not clear other than to say ‘the applicant transported and kept items of personal property at the location of the applicant’s employment, or alternative, with the respondent, at a place namely KoKo Hair Qld Pty Ltd …’.

4. The applicant asserts that he did not indicate to the respondent that he ever gave her authority to deal with the items the subject of this claim and apparently still in the possession of the respondent.

5. Leaving items with the respondent at the respondent’s company business address does not amount to a contract between two traders. Simply because one of a number of final decisions that can be made by the Tribunal is to order a party to return goods that, of itself, does not confer on the Tribunal jurisdiction to deal with instances where there is a retention of possession of items without any clear trader on trader relationship. It seems rather the applicant has unfortunately placed the items at the respondent’s business address trusting that they would be returned upon request.

6. Section 12 of the QCAT Act is clear in that the claim must arise out of a contract between two traders. There is no evidence of any contract here. Seeking the return of items as an action in detinue does not bring the claim within the limited jurisdiction of s 12 QCAT Act. The remedy referred to in s 13(2)(a)(iv) is clearly referrable to, inter alia, a trader on trader contractual dispute and there is no evidence of that here.

7. There is no form of application for the relief sought for the reason that it is neither contemplated nor referred to in s 12 of the QCAT Act.

8. Any dispute within the minor civil disputes jurisdiction can only be commenced by filing an initiating application for the types of claim specifically set out in s 12 of the QCAT Act. There is no provision for institution of a claim by filing an application for miscellaneous matters. That form of application is applicable to the sorts of matters commonly arising post filing eg substituted service, telephone attendance, change of venue etc.

9. In summary s 12 of the QCAT Act is not inclusive of an action in detinue as asserted by the applicant; nor is it the case that a minor civil dispute in any event can be commenced by way of an application for miscellaneous matters.

10. The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.