Palipane v Smith

[2014] QCAT 319

CITATION: Palipane v Smith [2014] QCAT 319

PARTIES:	Nihal Daya Madduma Bandara Palipane (Applicant)
v
Gary Smith (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: MCDO27-14

MATTER TYPE: Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Adjudicator Bertelsen

DELIVERED ON: 16 May 2014

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

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

CATCHWORDS: Debt – liquidated demand – investment scheme – profit factor – assessment of quantum – return on monies invested not a debt – nor a consumer claim

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 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The applicant, Nihal Daya Madduma Bandara Palipane (‘Mr Palipane’) entered into property sponsorship programs guaranteeing 50 per cent return on investments in around 90 days amongst other things. Mr Palipane invested $3,000 in March 2013. In his application Mr Palipane stated that he was never contacted during the course of 2013 up until November 2013 when Mr Palipane contacted the respondent Mr Smith. He requested the return of his money with the agreed interest. Neither the principal invested by Mr Palipane nor any return has ever been paid to Mr Palipane.

2. The question has arisen as to whether the claim is for recovery of a debt or liquidated demand.

3. This claim is about an investment in a scheme involving the sponsoring of the purchase of a house land package with a share of profit on completion of the house. The scheme spruiked a guarantee on capital and 50 per cent profit on lockup stage of the house. Moneys paid by the applicant to the respondent were always in the nature of an investment to create a return not moneys paid such as to create a debt owing.

4. Nor can the application be construed as a consumer claim. It was a business opportunity of which Mr Palipane availed himself. There is no domestic element to the investment it was entirely commercial/business.

5. Accordingly the application ought be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.