Simpson Racing Pty Ltd v Blunsdon - [2022] QCAT 173

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Simpson Racing Pty Ltd v Blunsdon & Anor [2022] QCAT 173

PARTIES: SIMPSON RACING PTY LTD

(applicant)

V

JOHN BLUNSDON

(first respondent)

AND

ROUDI BLUNSDON

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDQ107-21

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

26 April 2022

HEARING DATE:

29 March 2022

HEARD AT:

Caboolture

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Lember

ORDERS:

By 31 May 2022, John Blunsdon and Roudi Blunsdon must pay Simpson Racing Pty Ltd the sum of $3,279.91 comprising:

(a)     $3,101.20 debt;

(b)     $51.21 interest; and

(c)     $127.50 filing fees.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – minor civil dispute –   agistment and training of horses – whether horses sold – whether first respondent had ostensible authority to bind second respondent

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 3, s 4, s 13, s 102, schedule 3

Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1955) 93 CLR 546

Cordon Investments Pty Ltd v Lesdor Properties Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 184
Cox v J & M Phelan trading as Carrara Carmart [2020] QCAT 190
Hashfield v Gold Coast City Council [2020] QCATA 36
Right v Burrett [2020] QCATA 71

Saxer v Hume [2022] QCATA 25

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this application about?

The applicant went to see a man about a horse,[1] aptly named “Ruckus”.
[1]For completeness, the earliest recorded use of the literary term comes from the 1866 play by Dion Boucicault, the “Flying Scud” in which a character says “I’ve got to see a man about a dog.” This phrase later formed the more popular version of “I need to see a man about a horse.”
The first respondent, John Blunsdon, and the second respondent, Roudi Blunsdon, are father and son who, between them owned approximately fifty horses, of which approximately forty horses were owned by John, and the remaining ten by Roudi, including Ruckus. The applicant says they variously trained, agisted and purchased some of these horses as a consequence of their dealings with the respondents.
By an application for a minor civil dispute filed 11 November 2021 Simpson Racing Pty Ltd seeks an order against the respondents for the payment of $6,512.70 comprising:
(a)Invoice SR-110-00372-1 dated 24 October 2021 for:
(i)      Training/agistment and ancillary fees       $ 2,881.20
(ii)      Horse Transport fee   $ 2,700.00
(iii)     Legal and debt collection fees                   $     584.00
(iv)     Wasted Bloodstock Auctions listing fee    $     220.00; and
(b)Filing fee  $     127.50.
The applicants also seek declarations as to the ownership of horses they say they purchased from respondents: Dixie Prospect x Trialling (“Dixie Prospect”), Cluster x Kissed Again (“Cluster”) and Top Echelon v Aqua Modern (also known as “Ruckus”).
The application was filed on a “consumer dispute” form but it is clear that it is a “minor debt” and I have considered it on that basis. The application was served pursuant to a substituted service order, and the detailed “Submissions of the Respondent” filed 10 March…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Simpson Racing Pty Ltd v Blunsdon

Details

AGLC: Simpson Racing Pty Ltd v Blunsdon [2022] QCAT 173
Case: [2022] QCAT 173
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Simpson Racing Pty Ltd sought an order against John Blunsdon and Roudi Blunsdon for the payment of $6,512.70 comprising training/agistment and ancillary fees, horse transport fees, legal and debt collection fees, a wasted bloodstock auctions listing fee and a filing fee. The applicants also sought declarations as to the ownership of horses they say they purchased from respondents. The respondents did not participate in these proceedings. The tribunal was required to determine whether John Blunsdon had ostensible authority to bind Roudi Blunsdon in transactions with third parties, including the applicants. The tribunal was also required to determine whether Roudi Blunsdon had a legitimate basis to seek the dismissal of the application against him. The tribunal was further required to determine whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to make any orders in relation to the ownership of the horses and if so, what orders should be made. The tribunal found that John Blunsdon had ostensible authority to bind Roudi Blunsdon in transactions with third parties, including the applicants, and that Roudi Blunsdon had no legitimate basis to seek the dismissal of the application against him. The tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to make any orders in relation to the ownership of the horses. The tribunal ordered that John Blunsdon and Roudi Blunsdon pay Simpson Racing Pty Ltd the sum of $3,279.91 comprising: (a) $3,101.20 debt; (b) $51.21 interest; and (c) $127.50 filing fees.

Orders