Professional Investment Services Pty Ltd v Daily
[2015] QCAT 376
•10 August 2015
| CITATION: | Professional Investment Services Pty Ltd v Daily [2015] QCAT 376 |
| PARTIES: | Professional Investment Services Pty Ltd (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Paul Thomas Daily (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDO137-14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Other minor civil dispute matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Southport |
| DECISION OF: | Adjudicator Mewing |
| DELIVERED ON: | 10 August 2015 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Southport |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application for an Order by consent is refused. | |
| CATCHWORDS: | Other minor civil dispute matters – application for default decision – default decision made - application for order by consent | |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This application was heard on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
REASONS FOR DECISION
These written reasons for the Tribunal’s decision of 10 August 2015 to refuse an application to make an Order by consent in this matter are provided pursuant to a request for reasons.
On 20 February 2014 the Applicant filed an Application for Minor Civil Dispute at the Southport Registry of QCAT, seeking an Order that the Respondent pay $10,451.98 to the Applicant.
On 15 May 2014 the Applicant filed a Request for Decision by Default – Minor Debt, seeking a default decision on the original claim, plus additional interest. The default amount claimed was $10,679.39.
On the same day the Principal Registrar granted the decision by default, awarding payment of $10,499.32 by the Respondent to the Applicant.
On 31 July 2015 the Applicant applied for an Order by consent, stating that the Applicant and respondent had agreed that the Respondent would settle a debt outstanding to the Applicant by payment of $5,000.00 “in full and final satisfaction of the debt owing.” This application was dismissed by the Tribunal on 10 August 2015.
The 31 July application was refused because an Order in respect of the matter in dispute was still in operation. Unless and until the Respondent had applied under s 51 of the QCAT Act to have the default decision of 15 May 2014 set aside (and that application was not contested by the Applicant), the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to make another Order in respect of the same subject matter—whether by consent or otherwise.
It appears that the parties have come to some arrangement with respect to the debt that was the subject of the originating application. That is commendable. If they wish to give legal effect to this arrangement by obtaining on Order by consent they must first have the ‘live’ default decision set aside. It is for these reasons that the application of 31 July was refused.
0
0
0