Singh v Cseh - [2021] QCATA 54

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Singh v Cseh [2021] QCATA 54

PARTIES:

ABHAY KUMAR SINGH

(applicant/appellant)

v

GAMOR CSEH

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL023-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO640-19 Brisbane

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

28 April 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – where an applicant in minor debt proceedings sought recovery of moneys loaned to the respondent – where the respondent conceded the loan was made but claimed set off or a counter application – where the Adjudicator hearing the matter was prepared to consider a set off in respect of rent moneys claimed to have been received by the lender but refused another claim that was a counter application and therefore not available in minor debt actions – where the respondent was granted an adjournment to obtain specific evidence – where the respondent failed to produce the evidence at the adjourned hearing – where judgment was given in favour of the applicant lender – where the respondent borrower sought leave to appeal – where the appellant claimed breach of natural justice in the denial of a further adjournment of the second hearing

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

The Pot Man Pty Ltd v Reaoch [2011] QCATA 318

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

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

Mr Singh borrowed money from Mr Cseh. In June 2017 he borrowed $15,000. Then in November 2017 another $10,000.
Mr Singh signed written acknowledgements of the loans and agreed to repay the loans by monthly instalments of $500 each commencing 30 July 2017.
Mr Singh made the monthly payments of $500 until December 2017 but then stopped paying.
Mr Cseh commenced minor debt proceedings in the Tribunal on 12 April 2019 claiming a balance due of $22,000.
Mr Singh filed a response to the minor debt claim. He did not dispute the loan but said that Mr Cseh had received rent of $425 per week from a tenant of a residential property owned by Mr Singh to a total of $8,650. Additionally Mr Singh claimed Mr Cseh had sold three “coolers” owned by Mr Singh from Mr Singh’s shop valued at $60,000. In result he denied any indebtedness to Mr Cseh, but rather claimed Mr Cseh owed him $46,650.
The matter came on for hearing before an Adjudicator on 15 November 2019. Mr Cseh appeared in person and Mr Singh appeared by telephone from Fiji where he practises law as a barrister.
Mr Singh asked for an adjournment to allow him to bring the tenant to the hearing to support his claims about Mr Cseh having taken rent in reduction of the loan monies. Mr Singh said he had not been able to contact the tenant. The…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Singh v Cseh and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] QCATA 54
Decision Date: 28 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh v Cseh involved a dispute between the applicant, Singh, and the respondent, Cseh, in minor debt proceedings. Singh sought the recovery of moneys loaned to Cseh, which Cseh conceded had been borrowed. However, Cseh argued for set off or a counter application. The Adjudicator allowed a set off in respect of rent claimed by Singh but rejected a counter application, stating it was unavailable in minor debt actions. Cseh was granted an adjournment to obtain specific evidence but failed to produce it at the rescheduled hearing, leading to a judgment in Singh's favour. Cseh then sought leave to appeal, alleging a breach of natural justice due to the denial of a further adjournment for the second hearing.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the Adjudicator had correctly applied the law in allowing a set off but not a counter application, and whether the denial of a further adjournment breached natural justice principles. The court needed to determine whether these issues warranted an appeal and if the respondent's procedural rights had been upheld.

The court held that the Adjudicator was correct in distinguishing between a set off and a counter application, as the latter is not permissible in minor debt proceedings. Regarding the adjournment, the court found that the Adjudicator had exercised discretion reasonably in denying a further adjournment, as Cseh had already been granted an opportunity to present specific evidence. The court concluded that there was no breach of natural justice in this instance. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.

CITATION:	Singh v Cseh [2021] QCATA 54
PARTIES:	ABHAY KUMAR SINGH
(applicant/appellant)
v
GAMOR CSEH
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL023-20
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	MCDO640-19 Brisbane
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	28 April 2021
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Howe
ORDERS:	Leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – where an applicant in minor debt proceedings sought recovery of moneys loaned to the respondent – where the respondent conceded the loan was made but claimed set off or a counter application – where the Adjudicator hearing the matter was prepared to consider a set off in respect of rent moneys claimed to have been received by the lender but refused another claim that was a counter application and therefore not available in minor debt actions – where the respondent was granted an adjournment to obtain specific evidence – where the respondent failed to produce the evidence at the adjourned hearing – where judgment was given in favour of the applicant lender – where the respondent borrower sought leave to appeal – where the appellant claimed breach of natural justice in the denial of a further adjournment of the second hearing Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 The Pot Man Pty Ltd v Reaoch [2011] QCATA 318
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)