Singleton v KRG Conveyancing Centre trading as KRG Law - [2010] QCAT 708

CITATION:

Singleton v KRG Conveyancing Centre trading as KRG Law [2010] QCAT 708

PARTIES:	Drew Roy Singleton and Susannah Elizabeth Singleton (Applicant)
v
KRG Conveyancing Centre trading as KRG Law (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDO1500-10

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

1 September 2010

HEARD AT:

Southport

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Trueman

DELIVERED ON:

4 October 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

ORDERS MADE:

1. That the claim be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

CATCHWORDS :

Jurisdiction – section 12 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) – definition of ‘relevant person’ – definition of ‘trader’ – whether Applicant is entitled to bring claim that is not for debt or liquidated demand for money – claim for ‘damages’- proper named Respondent.

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Drew Roy Singleton Susannah Elizabeth Singleton
RESPONDENT:	Malcolm Tucker

REASONS FOR DECISION

Overview of the Matter

The Applicants filed a claim on 6 May 2010 for a minor civil dispute – consumer dispute for orders that the Respondent pay and refund monies to them. The claim for payment is for $5240.16 and a refund of money of $625.00 and a filing fee of $90, the total claim amount being $5955.16.
The Applicants were clients of the Respondent. Mr Malcolm Tucker who appeared as the current Principal of the Respondent Company KRG Conveyancing Centre trading as KRG Law. The Applicants claim is that the Respondent should reimburse them for costs incurred from the error of the Respondent in settling a conveyance matter two weeks prior to the scheduled contract date on 23 October 2009 and incurring additional costs for loan fees and loan repayments.
The Respondent states that he is not the proper Respondent to the claim and that even if he was that the Applicants do not have jurisdiction to bring their claim against the Respondent as that entity is a Law Firm, KRG Conveyance Centre trading as KRG Law.

History of the matter

The facts are that the Applicants instructed KRG Law to conduct a conveyance on their behalf. The Principal at the time was Mr Ian Richardson. Mr Richardson was removed from the roll of Practitioners on or about 25 November 2009 which was subsequent to the conduct of the conveyance. On 11 December 2009 Mr Richardson passed away.
The Applicants seek to claim against the firm and the current Principal of that firm is Mr Tucker. The firm KRG Conveyancing Pty Ltd was registered on 9 February 2010. The business name KRG Law was registered by the Company on 6 April 2010. The law firm that the Applicant dealt with is not this Respondent as the alleged conduct of the conveyance occurred between 20 August 2009 and settlement on 23 October 2009. The Applicants may have a claim personally against Mr Ian Richardson and or his firm. The firm KRG Conveyancing Pty Ltd did not exist at the time the alleged claim arose.
Mr Tucker stated that he was employed as a Solicitor with KRG Law on 10 November…

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 Singleton v KRG Conveyancing Centre trading as KRG Law 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: [2010] QCAT 708
Decision Date: 4 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singleton v KRG Conveyancing Centre trading as KRG Law involved a dispute where the Applicant, Singleton, sought damages against the Respondent, KRG Conveyancing Centre. The matter was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). Singleton’s claim was not for a debt or liquidated demand for money, but rather for damages. The core of the dispute centred around whether QCAT had the jurisdiction to hear Singleton’s claim and whether the Respondent was correctly named.

The legal issues before QCAT were twofold: first, whether Singleton's claim fell within the definition of a ‘relevant person’ as per section 12 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), and second, whether the claim was against the proper ‘trader’. Specifically, the court needed to determine if Singleton's claim for damages against KRG Conveyancing Centre was within QCAT’s jurisdictional remit, and if the Respondent was correctly identified as KRG Law or if it should have been KRG Conveyancing Centre.

QCAT found that Singleton’s claim did not fall within the definition of a ‘relevant person’ and that the claim was not for a debt or liquidated demand for money. Furthermore, QCAT held that the correct Respondent was KRG Conveyancing Centre, not KRG Law. Consequently, the tribunal concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear Singleton’s claim, and the application was dismissed. The tribunal emphasised that the absence of jurisdiction meant that the claim could not proceed, regardless of its merits.

The tribunal's decision was clear in its dismissal of Singleton's claim for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal did not entertain the merits of the claim but rather focused on the jurisdictional constraints. The claim was dismissed, and no further orders were made beyond this jurisdictional ruling.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the claim be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

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.