Simons v R & D Accounting

Case [2022] QCATA 131


QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Simons v R & D Accounting [2022] QCATA 131

PARTIES:

mr peter simons atf douglas simons trust

(applicant/appellant)

v

r & d accounting

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL345-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO31-20 Townsville

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

16 August 2022

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

A/Senior Member Howe

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to adduce fresh evidence refused

2.   Application for leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – where an accountant sued by way of minor debt proceedings to recover fees for work done – where the client had given instructions to prepare tax returns - where the client claimed the work was later discovered to be unnecessary – where the advice given by the accountant was challenged as wrong - where the claim by the accountant was allowed for the work in respect of all returns but reduced – where the client sought leave to appeal – where there can be no counter application in minor debt proceedings in the Tribunal – where the value of the work done could be reduced by claimed set off – where the claim that the advice given was wrong constituted a separate actionable claim and could not be determined as a counter application

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), r 48(3)

Auspex Property Research Pty Ltd v Morris [2019] QCATA 009

Jonathan v Mangera [2016] QCA 86

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. Mr Simons, together with his sister, is trustee of a special disability trust established by his mother in 2014 for the benefit of his disabled brother. Mr Simon’s mother passed away in 2015.

  2. In August 2017 the trustees received advice from Centrelink that the trust was approved and that the trustees were required to provide financial statements. There were also provided with information concerning the requirement or otherwise to lodge a tax return.

  3. In February 2018 Mr Simons received further information from Centrelink stating that the trust’s first annual review would be the 2017/2018 financial year with a reporting deadline of 31 March 2019.

  4. R & D had performed other accounting work for Mr Simons. On 16 February 2019 he contacted them about the disability trust. He advised that no income tax returns had been filed for the disability trust or another separate testamentary trust in respect of the disabled brother.

  5. Mr Simons asked R & D to advise what was required of the trustees to respond to the correspondence from Centrelink, which was in turn provided to R & D.

  6. R & D advised income tax returns for the year ended 30 June 2018 as well as those from 2014 on were required.

  7. R & D prepared all those income tax returns…

Continue reading Simons v R & D Accounting

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Simons v R & D Accounting [2022] QCATA 131
Case
[2022] QCATA 131
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Simons sought to recover fees for work done from R & D Accounting. The client had given instructions to prepare tax returns, but later claimed the work was unnecessary and that the advice given by the accountant was wrong. The claim by the accountant was allowed for the work in respect of all returns but reduced. The client sought leave to appeal, but there can be no counter application in minor debt proceedings in the Tribunal. The value of the work done could be reduced by claimed set off, but the claim that the advice given was wrong constituted a separate actionable claim and could not be determined as a counter application. The court was required to determine whether the client was entitled to appeal and, if so, whether the appeal should be allowed. The court found that the client was entitled to appeal, but the appeal was refused. The court found that the client could not adduce fresh evidence and that there was no basis for the appeal to succeed. The court also found that the claim that the advice given was wrong constituted a separate actionable claim and could not be determined as a counter application. The court refused leave to adduce fresh evidence and the application for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to adduce fresh evidence refused

2. Application for leave to appeal refused

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.