Rutledge v Johnson

[2016] QCAT 202

CITATION: Rutledge v Johnson [2016] QCAT 202

PARTIES:	Stephen Rutledge (Applicant)
v
Adam Michael Johnson (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: MCDO181-16

MATTER TYPE: Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE: 3 May 2016

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Adjudicator Anna Walsh

DELIVERED ON: 21 June 2016

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.     Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

CATCHWORDS:

Consumer dispute

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

APPEARANCES:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 2 February 2016 Stephen Rutledge filed an application for minor civil dispute – consumer dispute against Mr Adam Michael Johnson.

2. On 15 February 2016 a direction was made that the parties provide submissions to the tribunal within 21 days as to why the application ought not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

3. On 7 April 2016 the Respondent applied for an order for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.

4. The file was passed to me and after considering the application, I made an order dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction.

5. The Applicant has requested reasons for that decision.

6. Mr Rutledge has applied for an order that Mr Johnson pay him a sum of $21,427.40 being the costs to replace a retaining wall at Mr Rutledge’s property in Manly.

7. The property was purchased by Mr Rutledge from Mr Johnson in February 2011.

8. The retaining wall was built by Mr Johnson sometime in late 2010 or early 2011 after final certification and in his capacity as an owner occupier of the property.

9. According to Mr Rutledge the wall failed in 2015 and he requires Mr Johnson to pay the costs of its replacement.

10. Section 12 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) gives QCAT jurisdiction to exercise its jurisdiction for minor civil disputes if a relevant person applies to the tribunal to deal with the dispute.

11. Relevantly, subsection 4 says:

    (4)  In this section—

    relevant person means—

    …

    (b)subject to paragraphs (c) to (g), for a claim arising out of a contract between a consumer and a trader—the consumer;…

12. Trader is defined in Schedule 3 of the QCAT Act.

    trader—

    1 A trader—

    (a) means a person who in trade or commerce—

    (i)carries on a business of supplying goods or providing services; or

    (ii)regularly holds himself, herself or itself out as ready to supply goods or to provide services of a similar nature;…

13. Mr Johnson was a homeowner, not a trader as defined in the QCAT Act and the tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with this Application filed as a consumer dispute.

14. Neither is the claim one for a debt or liquidated demand that could be determined by the Tribunal as a minor debt claim.

15. The tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine the dispute and the Application was dismissed.