Right v Burrett - [2020] QCATA 71

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Right v Burrett [2020] QCATA 71

PARTIES: KRISTY RIGHT

(appellant)

v

BELINDA BURRETT

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL242-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO 1/19 (Beaudesert)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

19 May 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Gordon

ORDERS:
1.   Leave to appeal is granted. The appeal is allowed.

2.   The decision made in MCDO 1/19 (Beaudesert) on 27 June 2019 is set aside.

3.   This decision is substituted: ‘Application MCDO 1/19 (Beaudesert) is dismissed because the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear it as a minor civil dispute’.

CATCHWORDS:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where an Adjudicator heard a minor civil dispute for a debt or liquidated demand of money – where the primary claim was for an order that the seller of a horse deliver a signed transfer form to the buyer – whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where an Adjudicator ordered the seller of a horse to deliver a signed transfer form to the buyer - whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to make such an order when hearing a minor civil dispute

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 13, s 114, Schedule 3

Alliance Security Australia Pty Ltd v House Secure Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 89
Hashfield v Gold Coast City Council [2020] QCATA 36

REPRESENTATION:

Appellant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is another minor civil dispute appeal with jurisdictional issues. The dispute between the parties was eminently suitable for resolution by the tribunal and on the Adjudicator’s findings which cannot be impugned, the applicant was entitled to the remedy that she sought. Yet in this appeal I have had to find that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute nor to give the remedy sought.
The result is inconsistent with the objects of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act) to have the tribunal deal with matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick,[1] achieved by conducting proceedings in an informal way that minimises costs to the parties, and is as quick as is consistent with achieving justice.[2]
[1]Section 3(b).
[2]Section 4(c).
The dispute concerned a Quarter Horse named Silver Dusted Missile. The horse was registered with the Australian Quarter Horse Association (AQHA) which maintains a Stud Book of Quarter Horses. Belinda Burrett purchased the horse from Kristy Right but it was not delivered with a signed transfer form. This meant that Ms Burrett could not record the transfer of ownership with the AQHA. Ms Burrett therefore brought an application in the tribunal seeking an order that Ms Right deliver the signed transfer form to…

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.

Continue reading Right v Burrett

Details

AGLC: Right v Burrett [2020] QCATA 71
Case: [2020] QCATA 71
Decision Date: 19 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Right v Burrett involved a minor civil dispute heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) concerning the sale of a horse. The primary claim was for an order that the seller, Ms Burrett, deliver a signed transfer form to the buyer, Ms Right. The dispute escalated to the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the tribunal's jurisdiction to hear and make such an order was challenged. The court had to determine whether QCAT had the requisite jurisdiction to hear and make orders in a minor civil dispute concerning the sale of a horse and the delivery of a signed transfer form.

The legal issue before the court was whether the QCAT had the jurisdiction to hear the claim and make the orders it did. The court considered the definition of "final decision" in Schedule 3 of the QCAT Act, which includes decisions that finally decide the matters of the proceeding. It also considered the scope of QCAT's powers under the Act, including the ability to make orders that are not "final decisions" but are necessary to resolve issues or provide remedy. The court examined the specific orders made by the Adjudicator and whether they fell within QCAT's jurisdiction under the Act. It also considered whether the Adjudicator's decision was the final decision in the matter.

The court found that the Adjudicator's decision was indeed the final decision in the proceeding, but it was necessary to consider the components of that decision to determine if QCAT had the jurisdiction to make them. The court held that orders 1, 2, and 5 could properly be regarded as directions under section 62 of the Act and did not form part of the final decision. Orders 3 and 4, however, needed to be considered in light of the definition of "final decision" in Schedule 3 of the Act. The court concluded that QCAT did not have the jurisdiction to hear the claim and make the orders it did, as the requirement for a signed transfer form was not a matter that could be determined by QCAT in a minor civil dispute. The court held that the Adjudicator's decision was beyond the tribunal's jurisdiction.

The court set aside the decision made in MCDO 1/19 (Beaudesert) on 27 June 2019 and dismissed the application because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it as a minor civil dispute. The decision was substituted with the following: 'Application MCDO 1/19 (Beaudesert) is dismissed because the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear it as a minor civil dispute'.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is granted. The appeal is allowed.

2. The decision made in MCDO 1/19 (Beaudesert) on 27 June 2019 is set aside.

3. This decision is substituted: ‘Application MCDO 1/19 (Beaudesert) is dismissed because the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear it as a minor civil dispute’.

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

The relevant definition of final decision in Schedule 3 of the QCAT Act is:final decision, of the tribunal in a proceeding—(a) means the tribunal’s decision that finally decides the matters the subject of the proceeding; It should be pointed out that some final decisions are also governed by other provisions in the QCAT Act, such as dismissing an application which lacks substance (section 47) or for causing a disadvantage (section 48) and decisions by default in the case of a claim to recover a debt or a liquidated demand of money (section 50A). Further, the tribunal can make other orders in minor civil disputes which are important to resolve issues in the dispute or to provide some remedy but which are not ‘final decisions’ under section 13. For example, interest can be awarded in a claim to recover a debt or liquidated demand of money (section 14), an interim order can be made (section 58),[32] a limited costs order can be made (section 102) and a conditional or ancillary order can be made (section 114). Finally, procedural orders can be made which are not ‘final decisions’, for example parties can be joined or removed (section 42), representation can be allowed (section 43), the application can be transferred to a more appropriate forum (section 52), or a direction can be given (section 62). [32]By section 129 an interim order will be a ‘final decision’ for the purpose of enforcement. A final decision has certain attributes under the QCAT Act. It must be given in writing (section 21), reasons for the final decision must be given orally or in writing [section 121(4)], it may be published in any way the tribunal considers appropriate (section 125), it may be enforced in the courts (sections 131 and 132), and it may be ‘renewed’ if there are problems with its enforcement or implementation (section 133). It has been held that there can only be one final decision in a matter,[33] but the way the expression is used in section 13 is that the tribunal could make more than one final decision.[33]Stuart v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCA 115, [15]. It is clear that the decision on 27 June 2019 was the final decision in Ms Burrett’s application. When deciding whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to make that decision, it is necessary to consider each of its components. It seems clear that orders 1, 2 and 5 can properly be regarded as directions under section 62 of the Act. As such they would not form part of the final decision in the application, apart from appearing in the same order as the final decision. Orders 3 and 4 need to be considered by reference to the definition of final decision in Schedule 3 of the Act that it is the ‘tribunal’s decision that finally decides the matters the subject of the proceeding’. There were a number of matters the subject of the proceeding. There was an issue who had purchased the horse. Then there was an issue whether or not there was an express or implied term that a signed transfer form should be delivered with the horse. There was an issue about whether Ms Burrett had forfeited her rights under the contract in some way, and whether (if Ms Right’s counter-application could be formalised) the contract of sale should be rescinded for fraudulent misrepresentation. The Adjudicator resolved all those issues in favour of Ms Burrett.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.