Rahme v St James Equipment Pty Ltd
[2013] QCAT 341
| CITATION: | Rahme v St James Equipment Pty Ltd [2013] QCAT 341 |
| PARTIES: | Mr Adwan Rahme (Applicant) |
| v | |
| St James Equipment Pty Ltd Mr Robert Ernest Albert James (Respondents) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCL026-13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Other civil dispute matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the Papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Mr David Paratz, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 8 July 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The Directions made on 2 April 2013 are amended as follows:- Direction (2): The date for material to be provided by St James Equipment Pty Ltd and Mr Robert Ernest Albert James is amended to 9 August 2013. Direction (3): The date for Mr Adwan Rahme to provide any reply is amended to 9 September 2013. Direction (4): The date for a request for an oral hearing is amended to 13 September 2013. Direction (5): The date after which a decision on the papers will be made if no application for an oral hearing is made, or is refused, is amended to 13 September 2013. |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME – Directions returned in mail then sent to alternate address – principal believing that directions would be sent to his Solicitors – interests of justice for a party to have an opportunity to provide material Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Rahme (the buyer) bought a Used Isuzu Crane Tray Truck from St James Equipment Pty Ltd (St. James) on 13 December 2011.
Mr James is a principal of St James. I shall refer to Mr James and the company collectively as “the Sellers”.
Mr Rahme has experienced a series of problems with the truck, and alleges that he was misled as to the correct kilometres which the truck had travelled. He has made a claim on 3 July 2012 on the Claim Fund established under the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (the Act) for $105,860.77.
The claim was referred to the Tribunal for determination under Chapter 14 of the Act on 25 March 2013.
On 2 April 2013, I gave standard directions as to the filing of material by the parties, and providing for determination on the papers if no request for an oral hearing was made.
The Sellers were directed to file any material by 4pm on 30 May 2013.
The Directions were posted by the Registry to Mr James at an address at Fitzgibbon. That letter was returned. The Directions were then sent to an address in Taigum.
Solicitors acting for the Buyer advised the Registry in a telephone conversation on 7 May 2013 that the Buyer would not be providing any further material as described in Direction 1.
J C Lawyers, Solicitors acting for the Sellers, filed a change of contact details form on 5 June 2013, noting themselves as contact for the Sellers.
An application to extend time was filed on 26 June 2013 on behalf of the Sellers seeking that the date for filing any statements of evidence by the Sellers be extended from 30 May 2013 to a date that is not less than 30 days from the date the Tribunal considers this Application.
In the Application it is stated that Mr James was of the belief that the Directions from QCAT would also have been sent to his Solicitors, as they had previously corresponded with Solicitors for the Buyer, and only discovered in early June that this was not the case.
It is further stated that documentation was then sought from the Tribunal and received in middle of June 2013.
The Sellers wish to be given the opportunity to respond to, and contest, the serious allegations of misrepresentation made against them.
In a letter dated 1 July 2013, Solicitors acting for the Buyer have objected to the extension of time being granted. They say that it has been 18 months since their client purchased the vehicle, and that he has suffered considerable financial hardship as a result of the purchase, and that he wants the matter finalised as soon as possible.
They say that the Sellers have to show reasons for the delay, and an arguable case by the Sellers. They allege that there is nothing in the Sellers submissions which suggest that the Sellers have an arguable case. They refer to Gallo v Dawson[1].
[1] (1990) 93 ALR 479; (1990) 64 ALJR 458; [1990] HCA 30; BC9002940.
The Tribunal is required under s 3(b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 to deal with matters in a way that is fair and just, as well as quick. Under s 28 (3), in conducting a proceeding the tribunal must act fairly, and under s 28(3)(e) must ensure, as far as practicable, that all relevant material is disclosed to the tribunal to enable it to decide the proceeding with all the relevant facts.
There has been some clear difficulty in communicating with Mr James and the original directions for the tribunal had to be posted again to a different address. This would have reduced the time available to him to respond.
I am not satisfied that significant prejudice will be caused to the buyer by granting an extension of time of the Directions by about two and a half months overall.
The interests of justice require that the Sellers have an opportunity to reply to any allegations and to put material before the Tribunal, and to have the opportunity to request an oral hearing.
The argument of the Buyer, that the Sellers have not shown in their submissions that they have an arguable case, does not fall well when he is seeking to deny the Sellers the opportunity to make any submissions at all.
I therefore consider that this Application should be granted so as to extend the time available to the Sellers to make submissions. The consequent time periods should then also be extended accordingly, including the time available to the Buyer to make any submissions in reply, and time for the parties to consider whether to request an oral hearing after perusing any material.
I amend the Directions made on 2 April 2013 as follows:-
(2) the date for material to be provided by the Respondents is amended to 9 August 2013.
(3) the date for the Applicant to provide any reply is amended to 9 September 2013.
(4)the date for a request for an oral hearing is amended to 13 September 2013.
(5) the date after which a decision on the papers will be made if no application for an oral hearing is made, or is refused, is amended to 13 September 2013.
0