CITATION: | Rowley v Abacus Associates Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] QCAT 36 |
PARTIES: | Graham Milton Rowley |
| v | |
| Abacus Associates Pty Ltd (Respondents) | |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDO2200-14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Other minor civil dispute matters |
HEARING DATE: | 8 July 2016 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member McLean Williams |
DELIVERED ON: | 6 January 2017 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application is dismissed. |
CATCHWORDS: | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTES JURISDICTION – TRADER DISPUTE – definition of “trader” – whether accounting a discipline not normally associated with a trade or commerce – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction over accountants in Minor Civil Dispute jurisdiction ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where Tribunal has original jurisdiction over matters set out in s 450 of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) – whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over contraventions of PAMDA outside this section – whether director of a company not in breach of PAMDA should be named as respondent Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (repealed), s 346 Abacus Associates Pty Ltd v Graham Rowley t/a APL/QBC Partnership [2015] QCATA 37 |
APPEARANCES: | |
APPLICANT: | Mr Graham Rowley, in person |
RESPONDENT: | Mr Ian Prescott, in person |
REASONS FOR DECISION
This application, filed on 26 September 2014, has some considerable history both before QCAT and in the Magistrates Court, which I will now set out.
In about January 2008 a partnership (‘APL/QBC’) consisting of Graham Rowley, Martin Harvey and Michael Jackson was commenced. On or about 13 August 2009 Abacus and Associates Pty Ltd (‘Abacus Associates’) was engaged by Martin Harvey to perform accounting and bookkeeping services on behalf of the partnership. The APL/QBC partnership dissolved, yet Abacus Associates continued to undertake accounting work associated with the finalisation of the partnership. This appears to have included some debt collection work.
On 20 September 2013, the present applicant, Mr Graham Milton Rowley commenced proceedings in the Brisbane Magistrates Court against Abacus Associates seeking recovery of accounting fees paid by the partnership for debt collection work. The basis for that claim is that Abacus Associates is alleged to have carried out unlicensed debt collection work, in contravention of the (now repealed) Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘PAMDA’). The relevant provision in PAMDA is s 346.
Whilst the Magistrates Court proceedings were still on foot, on 14 February 2014, the Applicant commenced simultaneous minor civil dispute proceedings (MCD 0333/14) against Abacus Associates in respect of the same matters already claimed in the Magistrates Court. The claim was for $16,526.96 for debt collection fees, unlawfully charged.
On 14 March 2014 Abacus Associates commenced an application to strike out the proceedings,…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Rowley v Abacus Associates Pty Ltd & Anor 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] QCAT 36
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether QCAT had jurisdiction to hear disputes involving accountants under the Minor Civil Dispute jurisdiction, and whether the director of Abacus Associates could be named as a respondent when the company itself was not in breach of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld). Specifically, the court needed to determine whether accounting was a discipline not normally associated with trade or commerce, and if the Tribunal had jurisdiction over accountants outside of the provisions set out in section 450 of the Act.
The court found that accounting was indeed a discipline not normally associated with trade or commerce and therefore QCAT did not have jurisdiction over the dispute in its Minor Civil Dispute jurisdiction. Additionally, the court held that a director of a company could not be named as a respondent in proceedings under the Act if the company itself was not in breach. The court dismissed the application, concluding that QCAT had no jurisdiction over the matter and that the director should not be named as a respondent.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application is dismissed.
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.