Paul David Lomas v Veescorp Pty Ltd
[2011] QCATA 290
•19 October 2011
| 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.
0
0