Schepis v Q M Properties Pty Ltd

[2012] QCATA 197

CITATION: Schepis and Anor v Q M Properties Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 197

PARTIES:	Anthony Schepis Coachcode Pty Ltd t/as All Commercial Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Services (Applicants/Appellants)
v
Q M Properties Pty Ltd (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL103-12

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Justice Alan Wilson, President

DELIVERED ON: 12 October 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.    The application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – GENERAL MATTERS – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GENERALLY – GENERALLY – where invoice issued in 2003 – where email sent in 2007 which referred to payment of invoice – whether claim for payment statute barred – whether 2007 email an acknowledgement of debt – whether claim otherwise valid

Limitation of Actions Act 1974, s 10
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 32

Baycrown Pty Ltd v Ivi Pty Ltd [2007] HCATrans 107
Zanetti & Anor v Pierpoint(No 2) [2011] QCATA 334

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (‘QCAT Act’).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. In 2003, Q M Properties Pty Ltd lent $200,000 to IVI Pty Ltd.  The loan appears to have been associated with the provision of funds for legal expenses to a former Premier of Queensland but, as the learned Magistrate who heard the matter observed, it is beset with complicated inter-company relations and other dealings and transactions.

2. In short Mr Schepis, a director of Coachcode Pty Ltd, says that he and Coachcode guaranteed that loan on the condition that his expenses, associated with the provision of the guarantee, were paid by Q M.

3. Coachcode issued a tax invoice for Mr Schepis’ expenses in the amount of $3,821.66 on 24 February 2003.  The invoice was never paid by Q M but it was not until September 2011 that Mr Schepis filed a claim in the minor civil disputes (MCD) jurisdiction of the tribunal claiming $3,821.66 plus interest. 

4. Confusion surrounds that claim and this application for leave to appeal.  Within QCAT the matter has been recorded, throughout, as ‘Coachcode Pty Ltd v Q M Properties Pty Ltd’ but the original MCD application appears to show both Mr Schepis and Coachcode as applicants – Coachcode trading under the name ‘All Commercial Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Services’.  Mr Schepis has used both names, also, in his application to the Appeal Tribunal.  It appears that the original proceedings were intended to be brought by both Mr Schepis and Coachcode, as has the present application.

5. That confusion is compounded when it is observed that the original MCD application named a Mr Ian Russell, an officer of Q M, as the respondent – but, also, named that company.  For reasons that follow, while that confusion is to be regretted, it ultimately makes no practical difference: whatever the identity of the correct applicant(s) or respondent(s), the claim could not have succeeded and the…