Place Design Group Pty Ltd v Hassard - [2013] QCAT 742

CITATION:

Place Design Group Pty Ltd v Hassard [2013] QCAT 742

PARTIES:	Place Design Group Pty Ltd ABN 49082370063 (Applicant)
V
Mr David Hassard (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDO2984-12

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

25 February 2013

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Bertelsen

DELIVERED ON:

25 February 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The Respondents application to dismiss the initiating application is dismissed.

2. Time for service of the initiating application is extended to 2 April 2013.

CATCHWORDS:

Minor civil disputes - service

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The tribunal heard and determined this matter on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Respondent asserts service by email is inadequate, and the application ought to be struck out. This is so, even though prior to that he has filed a response to the application.
There is no evidence that the application as emailed was not fully received by the Respondent. In any event the applicant never filed an affidavit of service and it appears was still attempting to serve the Respondent properly. The application was simply emailed at the request of the Respondent.
The Applicant ought to be given additional time to serve the Respondent. If that proves too difficult the Applicant can always apply for a substituted service order.

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Place Design Group Pty Ltd v Hassard and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] QCAT 742
Decision Date: 25 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Place Design Group Pty Ltd, a company in the design industry, and Hassard, an individual with whom Place Design Group had a business relationship. The dispute arose out of a series of events that led to Place Design Group initiating legal proceedings against Hassard, seeking relief related to alleged breaches of contract and fiduciary duties. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court included whether Place Design Group's application to commence proceedings should be dismissed and, if not, whether the time for service of the initiating application should be extended. The court had to consider the application from Hassard to dismiss the initiating application on the grounds that it was not within the court's jurisdiction or was otherwise invalid. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether an extension of time for service of the initiating application would be appropriate, considering the circumstances surrounding the delay.

The court found that Place Design Group's application to commence proceedings was valid and within the jurisdiction of the court. It dismissed Hassard's application to dismiss the initiating application. The court acknowledged that there had been a delay in serving the initiating application, but it considered the delay to be excusable due to circumstances beyond Place Design Group's control. As a result, the court granted an extension of time for service of the initiating application to 2 April 2013.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Respondents application to dismiss the initiating application is dismissed.

2. Time for service of the initiating application is extended to 2 April 2013.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.