Paul David Lomas v Veescorp Pty Ltd

CITATION:

Lomas v Veescorp Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 290

PARTIES:	Paul David Lomas (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Veescorp Pty Ltd (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL082-11

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Richard Oliver, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON:

19 October 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

Leave to appeal granted.1.

The decision of the Tribunal made on 31 January 2011 is set aside.2.

CATCHWORDS:

Minor Civil Dispute – where respondent company deregistered at the time of the hearing of the application – where proceeding a nullity

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 31 January 2011 the Tribunal conducted a hearing of a dispute between Mr Lomas and Veescorp Pty Ltd. Subsequent to the hearing the Tribunal ordered that Mr Lomas pay to Veescorp Pty Ltd (ACN 109 669 481) the sum of $9,330.00 forthwith.

At the time the hearing was conducted and the order made, Veescorp was deregistered and no longer a legal entity. It was deregistered on 14 November 2010. Therefore, all proceedings for or against a deregistered company are a nullity.[1]

[1] Stergio v City Bank Savings Ltd (2005) ACTCA 15.

At the same time as the applicant filed the application for leave to appeal or appeal on 15 March 2011, he also applied for and an order staying the operation of the decision on 5 May 2011. The stay was granted with reasons. Mr Lomas then applied to have the appeal allowed and the orders of 31 January 2011 be set aside on the grounds that the proceeding was a nullity.

In response to that application Mr Armstrong for Veescorp has filed submissions relying on the fact that the company was registered at the time the proceedings were commenced in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction. He blames non payment by Mr Lomas of the judgement debt as the reason for the company’s deregistration. He submitted the appeal should be dismissed so he can enforce the judgement and have the company re registered. Mr Armstrong also submitted that if the appeal is upheld due to the deregistration, then “Paul Lomas’s action against Veescorp Pty Ltd would be negated as well”.

With respect to the last point, raised by Mr Armstrong, the Appeal Tribunal is only concerned with the application filed in the Appeal Tribunal on 15 March 2011 by Mr Lomas which challenges the decision that he pay to Veescorp $9,330.00 on the grounds that the proceeding was a nullity.

As was indicated in the reasons for the granting of the stay and consistent with authority, the decision of 31 January 2011 must be set aside on the basis that the proceeding was a nullity and an order could not be made against a company that did not exist.

In respect of the substantive appeal, leave must be granted on the sole ground that Veescorp was deregistered. Leave is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by this error[2] even though the fact of deregistration was not brought to the attention of the learned Member.

[2] QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 41.

The orders of the Tribunal will be that leave to appeal is granted and the order of the Tribunal made on 31 January 2011 is set aside.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Paul David Lomas v Veescorp Pty Ltd arose in the context of a minor civil dispute. Paul David Lomas, the plaintiff, was seeking a resolution from the tribunal concerning a matter against Veescorp Pty Ltd, the defendant, a company that was deregistered at the time of the hearing. The core issue involved the validity of the tribunal's decision made on 31 January 2011, given the company's deregistered status. The tribunal's jurisdiction to hear the matter was questioned due to the respondent's absence in a legally viable form.

The court had to determine the legal implications of the respondent company's deregistration on the proceedings and the validity of the tribunal's decision. Specifically, it examined whether the tribunal had the authority to proceed with and render a decision when the respondent was not a legally constituted entity. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the tribunal's decision, rendered in the absence of a valid respondent, was a nullity and, if so, what the consequences of such a nullity were.

The court found that the respondent's deregistration at the time of the hearing rendered the proceedings a nullity. Given that the respondent was not a legally recognised entity, the tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to make a binding decision. Consequently, the court set aside the tribunal's decision of 31 January 2011. Furthermore, the court granted leave to appeal, allowing the matter to be revisited in a higher court to ensure proper legal recourse and justice for the parties involved.

In summary, the court's decision was to set aside the tribunal's decision due to the respondent's deregistration, rendering the proceedings a nullity. Leave to appeal was granted to provide an opportunity for a higher court to review the matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established