Me & LN Rosemeyer Super Pty Ltd v Redwerks Pty Ltd

CITATION:

ME & LN Rosemeyer Super Pty Ltd v Redwerks Pty Ltd [2016] QCAT 195

PARTIES:	ME & LN Rosemeyer Super Pty Ltd ACN 163 690 631 (Applicant)
v
Redwerks Pty Ltd ACN 148 909 317 (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDO51540-15

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

12 January 2016

HEARD AT:

On the papers

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Mewing

DELIVERED ON:

12 January 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

ORDERS MADE:		1. The application filed on 14 December 2015 to set aside the default decision of 16 October 2015 is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – MINOR DEBT – DEFAULT DECISION – Where application to set aside default decision – Where Respondent did not receive originating application due to administrative error

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

No appearance required

RESPONDENT:

No appearance required

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

On 2 September 2015 the Applicant filed a minor debt claim against the Respondent in the amount of $12,778.67.
On 16 October 2015 the Applicant filed an application for Decision by Default, as no response to the Applicant’s claim had been filed by the Respondent within the requisite 28 days. The Registrar granted the default decision application.
By application filed on 15 December 2015, the Respondent asks this Tribunal to set aside the default decision.
Section 51 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 allows the Tribunal, on application by a respondent, to set aside a decision by default on terms the Tribunal considers appropriate.
In its request the Respondent says:
“[T]he Applicant did serve a minor debt claim on the Respondent’s Agents but the Respondent did not have access to the subsequent notification by the Agent. While the Respondent acknowledges that the service was addressed to its registered address as provided for by s9 of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1982, the Respondent and its directors were not made aware of the process until the 27 November 2015.”
The Respondent also claims that the Applicant’s minor debt claim is without substance.
The Tribunal is bound to afford parties natural justice in the conduct of its proceedings.[1] Natural justice is a flexible concept, the requirements of which must be adjusted to the statutory framework governing the Tribunal in question.[2] Perhaps the most inflexible aspect of natural justice is that a party must have the opportunity to present its case—but a party cannot rely on inability to present its case caused by its own error.[3]
[1]QCAT Act s 28.
[2]Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550; Booij & Multiply Plus Pty Ltd v Roper [2015] QCATA 157.
[3]Booij, Ibid.
The Respondent concedes that the originating application was validly served on it in accordance with the Service and Execution of Process Act. The evidence shows it was also served in accordance with QCAT Practice Direction 8 of 2009, which requires an application to be served on a corporation by posting it to the company’s registered office. The Respondent said the application was not passed on to it, or that it was otherwise “not made aware of it”. This is not an excuse providing grounds to set aside the default decision.
The public is entitled to assume that the published registered address of an Australian company on ASIC databases is correct, and that notices issued to that company at that address will be received. It is common for the company’s accountant or other adviser to act as agent for the company by allowing the agent’s office address to be the registered address for the company. Where that is the case and the agent has omitted to pass on an important letter, it may have a claim against its agent, but the company is not relieved of any liability, detriment or obligation to a third party.
The application to set aside the default decision is dismissed.

Me & LN Rosemeyer Super Pty Ltd sought to recover a minor debt from Redwerks Pty Ltd, which led to a default decision in their favour. Redwerks Pty Ltd applied to set aside the default decision, claiming they did not receive the originating application due to an administrative error. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue was whether Redwerks Pty Ltd's failure to receive the originating application due to an administrative error constituted a sufficient ground to set aside the default decision. The court had to determine whether the error was excusable and if it affected the fairness of the proceedings. Additionally, the court considered whether the error was due to Redwerks Pty Ltd's own negligence or if there were mitigating circumstances that warranted setting aside the default decision.

The court found that Redwerks Pty Ltd's failure to receive the originating application was due to an administrative error, but this alone did not constitute sufficient grounds for setting aside the default decision. The court emphasised that parties are responsible for ensuring they receive important documents related to legal proceedings. The error did not appear to be due to Redwerks Pty Ltd's own negligence, but the court concluded that the error did not significantly affect the fairness of the proceedings. The application to set aside the default decision was therefore refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established