Ritson v Ryan - [2021] QCAT 364

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Ritson v Ryan [2021] QCAT 364

PARTIES: BRENDAN RITSON

(Applicant)

v

JONATHAN LAURENCE RYAN

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO2024-16

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

21 October 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Katter

ORDER:

CATCHWORDS:

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

The application is dismissed.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL - minor debt claim -territorial jurisdiction - statutory assignment of choses in action - where the multiple causes of action assigned did not arise within Queensland – where assignors and obligor did not reside within Queensland

Australian Constitution s 75, s 77

Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) s 199

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 5, s 12

Bonython v The Commonwealth (1950) 81 CLR 486

Burns v Corbett [2018] HCA 15

Owen v Menzies [2012] QCA 170

Applicant:
Respondent:

Self-represented

Self-represented

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) and in accordance with directions of 18 August 2021 from the Appeal Tribunal.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The following reasons were delivered orally on 21 October 2021 at the Brisbane Registry of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“the QCAT”):
The Appeal Tribunal directed that the amended claim filed 1 November 2018 be remitted to the Tribunal to be decided on the papers with reference to all materials contained in the file and with reference to the transcripts from 14 March 2019 and 16 May 2019.
The Applicant is the Assignee for four individual assignments. For consistency, the Assignors will be identified as GS, LG, BC and CA in accordance with the description adopted by the Appeal Tribunal. The Applicant brings proceedings to the QCAT on the basis of assigned rights from the Assignors. That is, the Applicant/Assignee is bringing proceedings that, on the case of the Applicant, the Assignors would have been able to bring themselves prior to the assignments.
Prior to statutory intervention in all jurisdictions in Australia, the bare right to litigate could not be assigned. To do so would have raised concerns in relation to maintenance and champerty, or the making of industry out of litigation. In Queensland, section 199 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) (“the PLA”) now permits assignment of a chose or thing in action. The Appeal Tribunal considered section 199 of the PLA in relation to the question of whether a chose in action or legal or other remedy could be assigned. The Appeal Tribunal stated at paragraph 62 that “There is no reason to read this restrictively and it must include the rights which the assignors may have had at the time of their respective assignments to bring a claim against [the Respondent/Obligor] in the tribunal.” This sentence just read is particularly important in the consideration of this matter.
Therefore, in considering this matter, this Tribunal must have regard to the rights…

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 Ritson v Ryan

Details

AGLC: Ritson v Ryan [2021] QCAT 364
Case: [2021] QCAT 364
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ritson v Ryan, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear a minor debt claim brought by Brendan Ritson, the assignee of four debt claims, against Jonathan Ryan. The central issue was whether the QCAT could exercise jurisdiction over claims assigned to Ritson when the assignors and obligor did not reside in Queensland and the causes of action did not arise within Queensland. The assignors were residents of Victoria, Western Australia, and New South Wales at the material times.

The QCAT found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Tribunal reasoned that under the nemo dat principle, an assignee cannot have a better or different right than the assignor. Therefore, if the assignors did not have a right to bring the claims in QCAT, Ritson could not do so either. The Tribunal concluded that none of the assignors had a right to bring their claims in QCAT at the time of the assignments because there was no connection between the claims and Queensland. The assignors were not residents of Queensland, no dealings occurred in Queensland, and no causes of action arose in Queensland. The Tribunal also held that section 199 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) did not permit the enlargement or variation of the rights transferred by assignment so as to establish jurisdiction in a new state. As a result, the QCAT did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter and the application was dismissed.

The Tribunal's decision turned on the principle that an assignment cannot transform, enlarge or vary the rights of an assignor in a manner that was not available to the assignor. The QCAT could not exercise jurisdiction over claims that had no connection to Queensland merely because the assignee identified a Queensland address. The Tribunal's interpretation of the legislation was guided by the purpose of the QCAT Act and the need to avoid an absurd result that would permit litigation tourism.

Orders