RSB Australia Pty Ltd v Karaday Pty Ltd

[2014] QCAT 667

CITATION:    

PARTIES:

RSB Australia Pty Ltd v Karaday Pty Ltd [2014] QCAT 667

RSB Australia Pty Ltd
(Applicant)

v

Karaday Pty Ltd
(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: MCDO1828-14

MATTER TYPE: Minor Civil Dispute

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Adjudicator Gordon

DELIVERED ON: 1 December 2014

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:     The application to dismiss or strike out the proceeding is refused.

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The tribunal heard and determined this matter on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. By an application received on 22 October 2014 the Respondent applied on Form 40 for an order “to dismiss/strike out the Hearing set for 19 November 2014 for want of jurisdiction as has been ordered previously by VCAT”.

2. This application was accepted and dealt with as if it were an application to dismiss or strike out the proceedings.

3. In the application to strike out, the Respondent said that on 6 March 2014 VCAT had struck out a claim with the same subject matter for want of jurisdiction on being told in the hearing that the money paid to the Respondent by the Applicant had been “consummated in the United Kingdom on a motor vehicle purchased in that country”.  The submission was that therefore QCAT had no jurisdiction to hear the claim either.  The Applicant responded to this, saying that the VCAT member struck out the claim because the “commerce took place in Queensland” and not in Victoria.  The VCAT order does not state the reasons why the matter was outside VCAT’s jurisdiction.

4. The problem with the Respondent’s argument about this is that when a court or tribunal strikes out a claim for want of jurisdiction, this does not oust the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal which does have jurisdiction.  QCAT clearly has jurisdiction over the dispute because its jurisdiction stems not from the fact that the subject matter of the dispute has any connection with Queensland, but from the fact that the Respondent could be served within its rules and in accordance with the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth).[1]

   [1]     For a discussion of QCAT’s jurisdiction in these circumstances see Hartley v Bennette [2014] QCAT 091.

5. Whether or not the money was used overseas is irrelevant to the real question in dispute in the claim, and that is whether the Respondent is entitled to retain the money which was given to it as part payment for the performance of a service.