Norris v Pratt

[2011] QCAT 721

CITATION: Norris v Pratt and Anor [2011] QCAT 721

PARTIES:	Paul Kenneth Norris t/a Alectic Electrical Contractors (Applicant)
v
Phillip David Pratt and Melina Pandelides t/a Vista Architects NSW BN 9821 1918 (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER: MCDO210-11 (Beenleigh)

MATTER TYPE: Other minor civil disputes matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Beenleigh

DECISION OF: T J Davern, Adjudicator

DELIVERED ON: 5 August 2011

DELIVERED AT: Beenleigh

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The Application for leave to be represented is refused. 

2.    The Commercial Agent who has lodged this application (Mr Daniel Legrand) may attend any hearing or mediation process, but may only engage in that hearing or mediation process to the extent that the person presiding allows.

CATCHWORDS:

Application for leave to be represented – by a Commercial Agent – extent of the official role of a Commercial Agent

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 43

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The minor debt claim was filed by a commercial agent on behalf of the identified Applicant, for outstanding fees for goods and services provided to the Respondents, for electrical and communication work. 

2. The Response from the Respondents makes issue with the costs claimed for the contract, and alleges that there are outstanding issues with some of that work provided.

3. The Application for leave to be represented (signed by the commercial agent) does not identify if such representation is sought for mediation or hearing of the matter in dispute.  The next step in the process should be attempted resolution through mediation.

4. Nowhere in any of the documentation from the ‘Applicant’ (which includes the Application for Representation) is there any signature of the applicant himself.

5. Section 43 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (the Act) provides the framework within which representation may be granted.  The main theme is that parties should represent themselves unless the interests of justice require otherwise.

6. Section 43(4)(b) of the Act prescribes that “A party cannot be represented in a proceeding by a person – who is not an Australian legal practitioner or government legal officer, unless the tribunal is satisfied the person is an appropriate person to represent the party.”  

7. A licence for a ‘Commercial Agent’ grants authority to the holder to: finding or repossession goods, for a person any goods or chattels that the person is entitled to repossess under an agreement; collecting or requesting debt payments; or serving a writ, claim, summons application or other process (s 339 Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000).  A licence for a commercial agent does not extend to an authority to represent or advocate before a Court or Tribunal.  A ‘Commercial Agent’ is not subject to censure that would apply to a lawyer for instance, if the agent failed to carry out any representation or advocacy properly.

8. Beyond the points already mentioned, there is nothing to substantiate that Mr Legrand is an appropriate person to represent Mr Norris in this particular dispute.