Nicholas Skordakois v HP PPS Australia Pty Ltd - [2023] QCAT 309

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Nicholas Skordakois v HP PPS Australia Pty Ltd [2023] QCAT 309

PARTIES:

NICHOLAS SKORDAKOIS

(applicant)

v

HP PPS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO482-22

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

26 July 2023

HEARING DATE:

27 June 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Stroud

ORDERS:

Application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – minor civil dispute – consumer trader dispute – Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), schedule 3, “consumer”, MEANING AND EFFECT – whether an individual who receives goods as a gift is a consumer – whether a relevant person has applied under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 9(1), s 12, schedule 3

Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), s 259, s 266

Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld), s 16, s 50

Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

Nicholas Skordakois has brought an Application for Minor Civil Dispute against HP PPS Australia Pty Ltd (HP) concerning a HP ZBook mobile workstation (laptop) that Mr Skordakois received as a gift.
Mr Skordakois alleges that in the initial months of owning the laptop, he encountered multiple problems, all of which he reported to HP. Although HP proposed to carry out repairs on the laptop the parties fell into dispute regarding the necessity and manner of the repairs.
Mr Skordakois claims HP are in breach of the Australian Consumer Law (QLD) (ACL) consumer guarantees,[1] by asserting that the laptop is significantly unsuitable for its intended purpose and cannot be easily rectified to meet that purpose. He further maintains that he has incurred financial losses as a direct consequence of HP's breach of guarantee and seeks relief through an order for compensation and damages in accordance with the provisions of the ACL.
[1]Contained in Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
Australian Consumer Law (Queensland)
The ACL applies to contracts entered into between a consumer and trader for the supply of goods and services.
Consumer is defined in Section 3 of the ACL to include any person who acquires goods or services for an amount not exceeding $40,000 and the goods were of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption.
Section 266 of the ACL provides that a gift recipient, has the same rights and remedies as the original purchaser of the goods and any reference to consumer in the ACL includes a gift recipient.[2]
[2]Refer section 266 of Schedule 2 to the ACL.
Mr Skordakois therefore falls within the extended definition of a consumer under the ACL and has the right to bring an action against a supplier for breach of the ACL.
Jurisdiction
Before the Tribunal can consider the merits of the application it must firstly be satisfied that it has jurisdiction to determine the application.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with matters it is empowered to deal with under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act) or an enabling Act.[3]
[3]Section 9(1) of the QCAT Act.
The ACL has been adopted as a law of Queensland by the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) (FTA).[4] Section 50 of the FTA confers original jurisdiction on the Tribunal in respect of proceedings for the purposes of the provisions listed in the table contained within section 50, where the subject of the proceeding would be a minor civil dispute within the meaning of the QCAT Act.
[4]Section 16 of the Fair Trading Act (Qld) 1989.
Section 50 of the FTA includes an action against suppliers of goods under the ACL.[5]
[5]Section 259(2), (3) and (4) of Schedule 2 to the ACL.
In summary, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine a claim by a consumer against a supplier of goods under the ACL, so long as the claim falls within the definition of a minor civil dispute under the QCAT Act.
The definition of minor civil dispute in Schedule 3 to the QCAT Act includes a claim arising out of a contract between a consumer and a trader.[6]
[6]Ibid, Schedule 3 (definition of ‘minor civil dispute’).
Under section 12(1) of the QCAT Act ‘the tribunal may exercise its jurisdiction for a minor civil dispute if a relevant person has, under the Act, applied to the Tribunal to deal with the dispute.’
‘Relevant person’ is defined in section 12(4)(b) of the QCAT Act to mean, subject to subsections 12(4)(c)-(f), for a claim arising out of a contract between a consumer and a trader, the consumer.
Consumer is relevantly defined in Schedule 3 to the QCAT Act to mean an individual who buys or hires goods, other than for resale or letting on hire, or in a trade or business carried on by the individual or as a member of a business partnership.
Whilst Mr Skordakois falls within the definition of a consumer under the ACL, for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction to determine the application as a minor mivil dispute, the applicant must fall within the definition of a consumer as it is defined in the QCAT Act.
Unlike the ACL, the QCAT Act does not contain a provision that specifically deals with gift recipients.[7] The definition of consumer is limited to an individual who ‘buys’ or ‘hires’ goods. The applicant must therefore fall within either of those terms.
[7]See for example, section 266 of Schedule 2 to the ACL.
The terms ‘buy’, or ‘hire’ are not defined in the QCAT Act. In the absence of a definition of a term in the Act, the term must be given its ordinary meaning, unless a contrary intention appears.[8]
[8]Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355.
The Macquarie dictionary defines the term ‘buy’ as to acquire the possession of, or the right to, by paying an equivalent, especially in money, and ‘hire’ as to engage the services of for payment, to engage the temporary use of for payment.
The Oxford dictionary defines the term ‘buy’ as to obtain in exchange for money and ‘hire’ as to procure the temporary use of (a thing) for an agreed payment:
The common denominator in both definitions is the exchange of money for the right to own or use. In comparison, a gift does not include the exchange or money, it is something which is given not bought. I am therefore satisfied that the terms ‘buy’, or ‘hire’ do not extend to include a gift.
As a result, Mr Skordakois does not fall within the definition of consumer under the QCAT Act as he is not an individual who buys or hires goods. As he does not fall within the definition of a consumer under the QCAT Act, he cannot be a relevant person to whom the QCAT Act applies.
As the application has not been brought by a relevant person, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the application and the application must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
While QCAT lacks jurisdiction to determine this application as a minor civil dispute, this does not preclude an action being brought in a different jurisdiction.

Orders

1.Application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.